In Estibeiro v Carnival Corp., (S.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2012), Aleixo Estibeiro, an Indian seaman, brought suit against Carnival Corporation for damage to his heart sustained as a result of an alleged failure to administer medication in a timely manner following a heart attack while working on Carnival's cruise ship. Carnival sought to compel arbitration of the claims pursuant to an arbitration clause in Estibeiro's Terms and Conditions of Employment requiring arbitration under Bermuda law. Estibeiro opposed application of the arbitration clause, arguing that the agreement was void as against public policy.

The district court emphasised that there is a very limited inquiry when deciding motions to compel arbitration. Under the New York Convention, the court must compel arbitration unless one of the jurisdictional prerequisites are not met or an affirmative defense applies. The jurisdictional prerequisites are:

The available affirmative defenses are limited to claims that the agreement is "null and void" for fraud, mistake, duress, or waiver or that the agreement is inoperative or incapable of being performed. Since the plaintiff did not dispute that the jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied, the court was vested with jurisdiction to consider whether the parties' agreement to arbitrate was enforceable.

The plaintiff argued that the arbitration cause was unenforceable because it was against public policy. The district court stated that the "void as against public policy" defense is usually only available at the arbitration award enforcement stage. Although there may be an exception allowing for consideration of the defense at the motion to compel arbitration stage where there is a "distinct possibility" that there will not be a subsequent opportunity for review of a potential arbitral award, the court held that the exception was inapplicable. The court held that even if the public policy defense was applicable at this stage, Estibeiro had not made the requisite showing that his remedies under Bermuda law would be so inadequate as to be "fundamentally unfair." Accordingly, the court dismissed Estibeiro's objections and ordered arbitration.

This case highlights the strong federal policy favouring the application of arbitration clauses based on concerns of international comity, respect for the capacities of foreign and transnational tribunals and sensitivity to predictability in the international commercial system.