345 U.S. 571 (1953) Cited 746 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that because " cause of action under [federal] law was asserted here, ... the [federal] court had power to determine whether it was or was not well founded in law and in fact"
Holding that "federal common law allows piercing of the corporate veil where a corporation uses its alter ego to perpetrate a fraud or where it so dominates and disregards its alter ego's corporate form that the alter ego was actually carrying on the controlling corporation's business instead of its own"
Holding that, "in the absence of a specific and controlling federal rule," a marine insurance contract is "to be determined by reference to appropriate state law"
Holding that a written contract must be read as a whole and every part interpreted with reference to the whole, with preference given to reasonable interpretations
Holding that choice of law provision in maritime contract applies unless party opposing provision shows chosen state has “no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction,” or “state's law conflicts with the fundamental purposes of maritime law”