The U.S. Supreme Court case Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, Her Engines, Etc., et al., 1994 revolved around a dispute over the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). The plaintiff was an insurance company that had paid out on a claim for damaged cargo and sought to recover from the ship owner under COGSA's provisions. However, the bill of lading contained a clause requiring disputes to be resolved through arbitration in Japan which would have been more favorable to the ship owner than COGSA rules if applied. The question before the court was whether enforcing this clause violated COGSA's requirement that shippers cannot lessen their liability through contract terms compared with what it would be under COGSA itself. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that enforcement of such an arbitration agreement did not necessarily violate COGSA because it did not automatically reduce or limit carrier liability; rather it merely changed where and how disputes were resolved.

The dissenting opinion in the case of VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A. v. M/V SKY REEFER argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous court rulings and federal law regarding arbitration clauses in international bills of lading. The dissenters believed that enforcing a foreign arbitration clause would undermine U.S.'s Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), which aims to protect shippers from unfair practices by carriers and their agents. They contended that COGSA should apply even when goods are damaged outside U.S territorial waters if they were shipped under a bill of lading issued in the United States, as it happened in this case. They also expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on American businesses due to increased costs and uncertainties associated with litigating disputes abroad, particularly for small businesses without resources to pursue claims overseas effectively. Finally, they disagreed with the majority's view that public policy considerations favoring international comity outweighed these concerns because such an approach could lead to sacrificing important domestic legal protections for commercial interests involved in maritime shipping transactions.