Indemnity Insurance v. Schneider Freight e al.
Published: Nov. 8, 2001 | Result Date: Jun. 15, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CV0008032DDP – $0
Judge
Court
USDC Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Paul J. Marron
(Marron Lawyers APC)
Defendant
Neil S. Lerner
(Cox, Wootton, Lerner, Griffin & Hansen LLP)
Gary A. Angel
(Law Office of Gary A. Angel)
Andrew D. Kehagiaras
(Roberts & Kehagiaras LLP)
Facts
The plaintiff ordered an embossing machine from England that was shipped to the United States
aboard a ship owned by the defendant ocean carrier. The machine was packaged in a wooden
crate 13-feet high, 11-feet wide and 21 feet in length. The crate was transported on a flat rack
container. The machine entered Long Beach port by ship and was unloaded and placed on a
chassis waiting to be picked up a trucking company. While an employee of the defendant
stevedoring company was repositioning the machine and chassis, the machine fell off the
chassis and the machine was damaged. The Bill of Lading contained a forum selection clause
what provided the contract in the Bill of Lading was governed by the laws of Korea and any
dispute would be determined by the courts in Seoul, Korea. The Bill of Lading also contained a
liability limitation of $500, and the shipper failed to declare a higher value on plaintiffÆs machine.
Other Information
The ocean carrier, the terminal operator, and the stevedoring company each filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit under the terms of the ocean carrierÆs bill of lading. The plaintiff argued that the forum selection clause and the $500 limitation clause did not apply to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that because the defendants had not established an agency relationship between the plaintiffÆs insured and the intermediate transportation companies that had contracted with the ocean carrier, the terms of the ocean carrierÆs bill of lading could not be enforced against the plaintiff. The court disagreed with the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiffÆs insured, in hiring a freight forwarder, understood that the freight forwarder would not perform the actual ocean carriage. Therefore, the plaintiffÆs insured understood that the freight forwarder would contract with other transportation companies, on behalf of the plaintiffÆs insured, to perform the ocean carriage. Further, the court held that the plaintiffÆs insured was bound by the ocean carrierÆs bill of lading under its definition of the term "merchant" which included the owner and consignee of the cargo, i.e., the plaintiffÆs insured. Based on the foregoing, the court granted the ocean carrierÆs motion to dismiss on the basis of the Korean forum selection clause. Further, the court granted the motions to dismiss of the ocean carrierÆs subcontractors, terminal operating company and the stevedoring company, on the basis of the Himalaya clause in the bill of lading, which extended the benefits of the bill of lading to the ocean carrierÆs subcontractors.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390