The U.S. Supreme Court case Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., DBA Kirby Engineering, and Allianz Australia Insurance Limited in 2004 revolved around a dispute over liability for damaged cargo during international shipping. Australian company James N. Kirby contracted with International Cargo Control (ICC) to ship machinery from Australia to Alabama; ICC then subcontracted the inland rail portion of the journey to Norfolk Southern Railway Company under a Himalaya Clause that extended ICC's limited liability protections to its subcontractors like Norfolk Southern. When an accident occurred while transporting by rail causing damage, Allianz Australia Insurance sought compensation from Norfolk on behalf of Kirby but was denied due to the clause limiting their liability as per contract between ICC and Kirby which was also applicable on them being sub-contractors . The court ruled in favor of Norfolk stating that federal maritime law applied since it involved intermodal transportation under a single bill of lading across sea and land boundaries thus upholding validity of Himalayan clause extending limited liabilities protection.

In the dissenting opinion for Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's decision to apply federal common law in determining whether a railroad could limit its liability through a bill of lading contract. She argued that state law should govern this issue because it was essentially a matter of private contract interpretation rather than an area where uniform national rules were necessary or appropriate. Furthermore, she contended that even if federal common law did apply, the Court had misinterpreted maritime precedents and principles in deciding that Norfolk Southern could limit its liability under these circumstances.