Opinion ID: 67517
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interpretations of McDermott.

Text: Given the law described above, the two implicit bases for clear-and-unequivocal waiver in the New Orleans formulation work as well as the explicit basis does, even in cases involving the Convention. It is difficult, given the McDermott court's approach, to imagine that panel's coming to the same conclusion if it had been presented with language such as, e.g., Underwriters hereon, at the request of the Assured will submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction. Nor does McDermott give us any reason to think that its waiver rule would be applied in ways that render contractual terms meaningless. No decision interpreting McDermott requires the contrary conclusion urged by the Underwriters. In Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665, 672 (5th Cir.2002), the court explained: [In McDermott w]e established a clear statement rule for waivers of a litigant's rights under § 205. A party may only waive his right to remove under the [Convention] by clearly and explicitly saying so in the agreement. That language, though, is not unambiguous support for the Underwriters' position. A  clear statement rule does not mean the same thing as an  explicit statement rule. Beiser, at any rate, did not involve an application of the McDermott rule, so the quoted language is at best dictum. Nor did the Beiser court explain what it means for a waiver to be clear and explicit. Moreover, the New Orleans court made no effort to distinguish its approach to waiver from McDermott 's; the New Orleans court gave no indication of a special explicit waiver requirement that applies only in Convention cases. McDermott' s discussion of waiver in the Convention context seems almost indistinguishable from the explanation of waiver by forum selection in New Orleans. A party's consent to jurisdiction in one forum does not necessarily waive its right to have an action heard in another. For a forum selection clause to be exclusive, it must go beyond establishing that a particular forum will have jurisdiction and must clearly demonstrate the parties' intent to make that jurisdiction exclusive. New Orleans, 376 F.3d at 504. New Orleans, then, explains why the McDermott contract was not deemed a waiver. In fact, the McDermott court could have used this very language when it explained that the forum selection clause it interpreted was a waiver only of personal jurisdiction. The McDermott contract allowed McDermott to select venue, but not an exclusive venue; New Orleans explains that such a venue-selection provision would not be sufficient as a waiver in any case, Convention or not. It follows that the Underwriters' proposed heightened standard for Convention removal has no basis in law. McDermott permits waiver by means other than express waiver, and the New Orleans three-part synthesis, which accurately incorporates the McDermott standard, applies in the context of the Convention.