Great American Insurance Company v. Seaboard Marine, Ltd., Inc., No. 1:2018cv21346 - Document 38 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 16 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 6/18/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Great American Insurance Company v. Seaboard Marine, Ltd., Inc. Doc. 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTH ERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA M IAM IDIVISIO N CASE NO .1:18-CV-21346-JLK GIIEAT AM ERICAN INSUM NCE COM PAN Y,aforeign corporation, Plaintiff, SEABOARD M ARINE,LTD .,lN C., a fbreign corporation, Defendant. / O RDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S M O TION FO R SUM M ARY JUDGM ENT THIS M ATTER comesbefore the Courtupon DefendantSeaboard M arine,Ltd., (idseaboardM arine'')M otionforSummaryJudgment(D.E.16),filedM ay l4,2019.1 BACKGRO UND This subrogation suitarisesoutof the theh ofa forty-footshipping containerasitwas being transportedbytruck to aportwhereitwasto beloaded onto avesseldestined fortheUnited States. According to three billsoflading datedN ovember15,2017,DefendantSeaboardM arine contractedwithnon-partyDarikEntemrises,Inc.('dtheseafoodowner'')totransportthousandsof cases offrozen seafood from isplace of receipt''Rama,Nicaragua to Ssportofloading''Puerto Limon,CostaRica;thenviavesselç*AngelinaJ#''toiiportofdischarge''Brooklyn,NY;andfinaliy i t $klaceofdelivery''Elizabeth,New Jersey(seeD.E,16-2,at6-9). l o p i 1 I i 7 1The Courthasalso considered PlaintiffsResponse in Opposition (D.E.18),filed M ay 28,2019;alld Defendant'sReply(D,E.34),filedJune4,2019. ) i Dockets.Justia.com : i ) i is undisputed thaton November 16,2017,containerNo.CXRU 155737 8 wts transportedby DefendantSeaboard M arinebytruck from CentralAmerican Fisheriesto theCosta Rican border,andonNovember17,2017 itwastransportedtoDefendant'scontaineryard Stlocated afew milesoutsidePuertoLimon,CostaRica''(D.E.16,at3,!! 7-8).Then,onNovember2û, 2017at12:48 a.m.,thecontainerdeparted Defendant'scontaineryardfortheportdtwhereitw4s l i tobeloadedontotheshipAngelina,whichwasscheduledtodepartthatday''(D.E.16,at4,!9). Itisundisputedthecontainerwaslostintheareabetweenthecontaineryardandtheport,whiih ) : isknown astheSdcarousel''(D.E.16,at2).2 Plaintiffattachesto itsComplaintaçssubrogatign Receipt''signedbytheseafoodownerforthelossatissue(D.E.1,at7). ! y 1 1 ln the instantM otion forSum mary Judgm ent, Defendantarguesthat(çgplursuantto thl le i expresstermsoftheResponsibility clause ofgDefendant's)billoflading termsand conditions l, (Defendant)isnotliableforlossarisingfrom hijacking andisthereforeentitledtojudgmentasi ja l matterOflaw''(D.E.16,at8). ln response,Plaintiffarguesthat(a)theHarterActprohibitsla $ canierfrom usingtermsandconditionsinitsbillofladingtoavoidliability(D.E,18,at4-11t) t; and(b)Defendanthasnotmetitsburdenundertheburden-shiftingfrnmework oftheCarriage(! )f 2 j GoodsbyseaActof1935($icOGSA'')toshow itwasnotatfault(id.at11-15). r p II. DISCUSSION A . LegalStandard on Sum m ary Judgm ent @ ) r l i Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewherethereist'nogenuineissueastoanymaterialfatt and thatthe moving pal' ty isentitled tojudgmentasa matteroflam '' Fed.R.Civ.P.56(ç) 7DefendantproffersthedepositionofPlaintifpscorporaterepresentative,JuliaPrice,foracknowledgeme/ t 2 thatthecontainerwasd'interceptedbyarmedhi jackerswhostolethecontainer,, (D.E.l6,at4,!11),b?t Plaintiffdisputesthat'çM s.Pricewasacompetentwitnessto providetestimony astotheallegedcausepf Ioss''(D.E.19,! 1l). l ( ! l i l ' i I ( l (emphasisadded);Anderson v.fiberty Lobby,Inc.,477 U.S.242,247-48 (1986). An issueSs q genuineifareasonablefactsndercouldreturnaverdictforthenonmovingparty. Mi zev.Jefferssn i CityBd.ofEduc.,93F.3d739,742(11thCir.1996).AfactismaterialifitmayaffecttheoutcoYe I ofthecaseundertheapplicablesubstantivelaw.Allen v.Tyson Foods,Inc.,121F.3d 642,616 l (11thCir 1997).lfareasonablefactfindercould draw morethan oneinferencefrom thefact! s, ) . j creatingagenuineissueofmaterialfact,summaryjudgmentshouldnotbegranted. Samples#x l rel.Samplesv.City ofAtlanta,846 F.2d 1328,1330(11thCir.1988).Themovingpartyhastlje burdenofestablishingboththeabsenceofagenuineissueofmaterialfactandthatitisentitledjlo ) iudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeeMatsushita Elec.Indus.Co.v.ZenithRadio Corp.,106 S.Ct. 1348 l ,1 356(1986). ; ( B. ' BillofLadingisVoid UndertheH arter Act i l Clause4(b)ofDefendants ! DefendantSeaboard MarinearguesthatitisnotliableforthelossatissuebecauseClause k 4(b)ofitsBillofLadingTermsandConditionsist 'anenforceableprovision...reflectingtjle Parties'agreementtoallocateriskintheeventofahi jacking''(D. E.16,at8).Theprovisionstateh: . The Carriershallnotbe liable in any capacity whatsoeverfor...actsofthieves, hijacking * l k orany otherlossordamageto orin connectionwith theGoodsor i j Containersorotherpackagesoccurringatanytimecontemplated undersubdivision ! a)ofthisClause. l . . . l (D.E.16-1,at2-3).Subdivision(a)ofthatClausedefinestheapplicabletimeasçsduringtheentitqe timetheCanierisresponsibleforthe goods.''3 ; I J i 3Thefulldescriptionoftherelevanttimeperiod inClause4(a)is: . . beforeloadingonandafterdischargefrom thevesselandthroughouttheentiretime ! j l theGoodsorContainersorotherpackagesarein thecare,custody and/orcontrolofthe 1 Canier,itsagents,servants,Participatingcarriersorindependentcontractors(inclusiveof allsubcontractors),whetherengagedbyoracting fortheCarrieroranyotherperson,and . during theentiretim ethe Carrierisresponsible fortheGoods. (D.E.l6-1,at2). ' l l PlaintiffcountersthattheHarterActappliestothisaction (D E.18,at4-11).TheHartrlr . l Actstatesthata((canierengagedinthecarriageofgoodstoorfrom anyportintheUnitedStatesr t,, i 46U,SC.j30702(a),$1 maynotinsertinabillofladingorshippingdocumentaprovisionavoidiljg ( its liability for lossor damage arising from negligence orfaultin . . . custody,care,or propt@r delivery,''id j30704. SsAny suchprovision isvoid.''Id. TheEleventh Circuithasrecognized thatthe HarterActgovernsa canier'scustody or care ofproperty during the preloading phasç, ) AllstateIns.Co.v.1nt1Shi ppingCorp.,703F.2d497,499(11thCir.1983)(sfBecausethedamap:e hereundeniablyoccurredpriortothetimethegoodswereloaded,theHarterAct...controls.''). 1 InAllstate,acarrierthatcontractedto ship cargo from M obile,A labam ato San Juan,Puerto Riqo ) brokethesealsofthe itemswhilestillin M obile,Alabama.1d.at498.TheEleventh Circuitstatpd i . thatwhenacarrierCdacceptgs)custodyoftheEcargo)itundertlakesjallobligationsimposed uppn 1 acarrierbytheHarterAct...includingtheresponsibilitiesofacommonlaw bailee.''f#.at499:4 ( Here,Defendantitself assertsthatthe forty-foot shipping container departed its oWn I containeryard at12:48a.m.ifforcarriageinthecarouseltotheportterminal,whereitwastole I ; loaded ontotheship Angelina,which wasscheduledto departthatday''(D.E.16,at4,! 91 ). 1 DefendantcitestotheafûdavitofitsownDirectorofCompliance,DanO'Nei11,forthisfactlià; l l ! J 4 @ The HarterAct,originally passed in 1893,was largely supplanted by the Carriage ofGoodsby Sea Akt of 1936 (i$COGSA''),now codified asthe note following 46 U.S.C.j30701. Although COGSA by ii !s termsonlygovernsfortheperiodthatcargo isloaded ontoan oceanvessel,acarriermay extendCOGSA bycontracttotheentiretimethegoodsareinitscustody,(Cincludingaperiodofinlandtransport.''Kawasati KisenKaishaLtd.v.Regal-BeloitCorp.,561U.S.89,96(2010)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Herk, Clause4(a)ofDefendant'sBillofLadingTermsand ConditionsextendsCOGSA tothetime(sbefoi . e i loadingon,A thevessel.However,courtsthathave((upheldcontractualextensionsofCOGSA toperiops ordinarilycoveredbytheHarterAct,''havedonesoonlytotheextentthatCOGSA doesnotcontlictwij 'h theHarterAct.PTlndonesiaEpsonIndus.v.OrientOverseasContainerLine,Inc.,219F.Supp.2d 126$ , : 1269 (S.D.Fla.2002)(Jordan,J.);e.g.,UncleBen,sIntern.Div.of Uncle Ben,s,Inc.v.Hapag-Llo)?d Akteingesellschaf,855F.2d215,2l7(5thCir.1988);FruitoftheLoom v.ARAWAK CaribbeanLineLt4, 126F.Supp.2d1337,1341-42(S.D.Fla.1998)(Lynch,M .J.).Therefore,SeaboardMarine'scontractuhl extension ofCOGSA in itsbilloflading hasno bearing on whetherthe HarterActapplieshere. l 4 l q l $ . k ! ! i 2 seealsoD.E.16-2,at4,! 18),anditisthepositionofbothpartiesthatthtcargowaslostS%gajftir departingfrom thecontaineryard''(D.E.16,at4,! l1;D.E.19,! 11). Therefore,theCouz ) l ' concludesthattheSicarousel''areawherethecargowaslostiscertainlypartofthepreloadingphap't governed bytheHarterActin thisCircuit. SeeAllstateIns.Co.,703 F.2d at498. In its Reply, ! : ( I l Defendantcitesastringofcasesfrom aroundthefederaljudiciary for$e p0sition thatidthe HarterActdoesnotapply to a (loss)occuning during the inland phase ofia l multimodalcaniage''(D,E.34,at4),evenwheninthecustodyofthecanier(id at5).Inthet' irjt i caseinthisline,Jagenberg,Inc.v.GeorgiaPortsAuthority 882F.Supp.1065(S.D.Ga.1995i j, 1 the courtfound isitadvisabletokeep sea carriersto thestandardsim posed by theHarterActuntil i goodsareinthehandsoflandcarriersandactuallyleavingthemaritimearena.''1d.at1078.ln i 1 Jagenberg,cargo wasturned overto aseparateentity ata portin Savannah,Georgia forstoragk, ' i andwasdamaged whilebeingretrievedfrom thestorageareaby an tiinlandtruckerhiredby (tl!e ë seacanier)to take itto M acon.'' 1d.at1069. Defendantcitesothercasesapplying the sanje i reasoningasinJagenberg,allfrom outsidetheEleventh CircuitandallinvolvingcargolostJ/4r I i itwasunloadedfrom avessel(id.at4-5).5Regardless,thisCourtdeclinestocabintheHarterAtt, 5ThecasesareMannesman Demag Corp.v.M /V CONCERTFATAF5X,225F.3d 587,588,594-95 (5t, h Cir.2000)(cargodamaged en routeby truck from portin Baltimore,M aryland to TerreHaute,lndianj); Suzlon WindEnergyCorp.v.ShippersStevedoring CasNo.11-07-155,2008W L 686206,at*3-4,l8(S.D. Tex.Mar.7,2008)(cargodamagedwhilebeingloadedontotruckatportinHouston,Texas,destinedfi r 1 Minnesota);GreatAm.Ins.Co.ofN J:v.A/P Moller-MaerskA/S,482F.Supp.2d 357,358(S.D.N.Y. ï 2007)(cargohi jackedwhilebeingtransportedbytruckfrom portinGuatemalatoGuatemalaCity);Sony Computer Ent.Inc.v.Ni ppon Express U S. A.(Illinois),Inc.,3l3 F.Supp.2d 333,334-35,337,36)0 (S.D.N.Y.2004)(cargo originated in Japan stolenfrom containeryard inNew Jersey whilein possessi/n ofrailway);Philips-Van Heusen Corp.v.MitsuiO.S.K LinesLtd,No.CiV.A.l:CV-00-0665,2002 WL . 32348263,at#3,5(M.D.Penn.Aug.14,2002) slossofthecar-go reddurina nlandp tionof-iourni.y -( -ç - occur -- i -or whilethecontainersrestedinHarrisburg,,, Pennsylvaniaonjourneyfrom portinNewJersey);AbbotChenq, Inc.v.M olinosdePuerto Rico,Inc.,62 F.Supp.2d 44l,444,449-50 (D.P.R.1999)(soy gritsdamagid whiledepositedinsilosinPuertoRicoforstorageaftershipmentfrom Louisiana);andColgatePalmolih Co.v.M/P-'' ATLANTICCONVEYOR'',NO.95Civ.159(MBM),1996WL74286l,at*1,6(S.D.N.y. Dec. 3l, 1996) (cargo damaged during transport by truck from port in Baltimore, Maryland fo Jefïkrsonville,lndiana). ! 5 i i ; . I I l t l whichbyitstermsappliestoatscarrierengagedinthecarriageofgoodstoorfrom anyportintlle J United St ! ates,''46 U.S.C.j 30702(a),and which theEleventh Circuitspeciscally extendstoja i canier,spossession ofcargo priorto loading onto aship, Allstatelns.Ct).,703 F.2d at498,to #1 t j arbitrary pointatwhichthearenaisno longerSçm aritime.'' i j ' iigw jhen GulfCaribbean accepted custody ofthe extrusions itundertook allobligatioàs j ! j mposed upon acarrierby the HarterAct.'' AllstateIns.Co.,703 F.2d at499. The Courthold)s l thatthe same istrue here:when Seaboard M arine accepted custody ofthe seafood container,! l it i i undertookallobligationsimposedon itby theHarterAct,underwhich Clause4(b)ofitsTenss I ! i I I a 6 nd Conditionsisvoid. 111. CONCLUSION j i Underfederal1aw thatgovernsthecaniageofgoodstoandfrom portsoftheUnitedStateà, Clause4(b)inDefendantcarrier'sBillofLadingTermsandConditionsisvoidanddoesnjt i exculpateDefendantcarrierfrom liabilityforlossofcargoinitspossessionpriortoloadingtlje l cargo onto a vessel. Accordingly,itis ORDERED,ADJUDGED,and DECREED thit D I I N efendantsM otion forSummaryJudgment(D.E.16)be,andthesameis,herebyDENIED. k DONE and ORDERED in Cham bers at the Jnmes Lawrence King Federal Justiçe B uildingand United StatesCourthousein M iami,Florida,on this 18th day ofJune,2019. . #xx. %% AM ES LAW RENCE KIN G UNITED STATES DISTRICT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF F CC: GE IDA AIICounselofR ecord tiBecauseClause4(b)doesnotapply,thisactionisgovernedbyCOGSA'Sburden-shiftingframework. Sony MagneticProds.Inc.ofAmericav.M erivienti0/F,863F.2d 1537,1539(1lthCir.1989). 6 i j
]]>
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.
