Standard Multiwall Bag Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff,andtaian Insurance, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Marine Terminals Corporation, a Nevada Corporation; Port Ofportland, Oregon Municipal Corporation,defendants-appellees.standard Multiwall Bag Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff,andtaian Insurance, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Marine Terminals Corporation, a Nevada Corporation; Port Ofportland, Oregon Municipal Corporation,defendants-appellees, 114 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 114 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997) Argued and Submitted May 8, 1997. Decided May 21, 1997

Before: SKOPIL, BRUNETTI and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM* 

The district court properly determined that the scope of defendants' liability is governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). 46 U.S.C. § 1300 et seq. The bill of lading extends COGSA's liability limitations to "all terminal operators" and "stevedores," including "indirect sub-contractors" not having a direct contractual relationship with the shipper, Evergreen. Bill of Lading p 4, ER at 16. This provision unambiguously covers both defendants. See Institute of London Underwriters v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 881 F.2d 761, 767 (9th Cir. 1989).

Appellants contend that the bill of lading was no longer in effect when their goods were damaged because the contract expired once the goods left Evergreen's "actual custody." Bill of Lading p 5(A), ER at 16. However, by equating "actual custody" with physical possession, appellants read the bill of lading too narrowly. Although the goods had already been offloaded from Evergreen's ship at the time they were damaged, they were being stored on property in which Evergreen had purchased a "use interest" from the Port. ER at 79. Evergreen had an unfettered right to enter this property, and the Port was only allowed to use Evergreen's storage space when doing so would not "interfere with" Evergreen's operations. ER at 74. Appellants' goods were therefore housed on property over which Evergreen maintained a substantial degree of control. This is sufficient to satisfy the bill of lading's "actual custody" requirement.

AFFIRMED.

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.