The Cargo Letter
|
The Cargo Letter |
|
Section A: Trade, Financial & Inland News | Section
B: FF World Air News |
Section C: FF World Ocean News | Section
D: FF in Cyberspace |
Section E: The Forwarder Broker World
Pacific Fisheries v. HIH Casualty & General Insurance <
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Feb. 9, 2001
Marine Insurance: under California law, a breach of even an immaterial warranty
will void a policy where the policy expressly declares that it shall avoid it,
thus theÊP & I and Hull policies in effect at the time of the losses were
void since the vessel was in breach at the time of the losses of the policies'
trading warranties, although the losses were not caused by such breach;
Jury Trials: the district court correctly denied plaintiff's untimely demand for
a jury trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b).
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/9thpacificfisheries.html
Baker v. Exxon Co. (In Re M/T EXXON VALDEZ)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
>Feb. 8, 2001
Settlement Agreements: the settlement of claims by seafood processors against
Exxon which included an assignment to Exxon by those seafood processors of a
portion of their punitive damages claims against Exxon arising from the M/T
EXXON VALDEZ oil spill were valid, thus Exxon could in effect recover against
itself in the punitive damages portion of the trial & accordingly reduce the
total punitive damages it was required to pay.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/9thexxonvaldezbaker.html
Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap v. Heeremac Vof et. al
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Feb. 5, 2001
Int'l Law/Government Regulation: the plain language of the Foreign Trade
Antitrust Improvements Act ("FTAIA") precludes subject matter
jurisdiction over claims by foreign plaintiffs against defendants where the
situs of the injury is overseas and that injury arises from effects in a
non-domestic market, thus plaintiff Norwegian oil company's antitrust claim
alleging that it paid inflated prices for heavy-lift barge services in the North
Sea because of a territory splitting and price fixing conspiracy among the 3
worldwide operators of heavy-lift barges was properly dismissed.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/5thdennorske.html
Fishman & Tobin Inc. v. Tropical Shipping
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Jan. 31, 2001
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA"): four basic principles are
implicated when applying COGSA's package limitation to containerized shipments:
(1) the contractual agreement between the parties as set forth in the bill of
lading; (2) the term "package" means the result of some preparation
for transportation "which facilitates handling but which does not
necessarily conceal or completely enclose the goods;" (3) a container
cannot be a COGSA package absent "a clear agreement between the parties to
that effect, [and] at least so long as its contents and the number of packages
or units are disclosed;" and (4) "absent an agreement in the bill of
lading as to packaging of the cargo, goods placed in containers and described as
not separately packaged will be classified as goods not shipped in
packages."; thus where the relevant bills of lading show that a specific
number of packages of pants are in the containers, the packages & not the
container will be considered the relevant "package" for COGSA's US$500
package limitation; but where the relevant bill of lading states only that a
specific number of "units" of jackets are in the container, and in the
absence of "any clear indication that each garment-on-hanger was the
relevant unit of packaging being shipped," the container is the package.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/11thfishman.html
Bunge Co. v. Freeport Marine Repair
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Jan. 30, 2001
Collisions/Casualties: although Hull No. 40 was under construction when it broke
from its moorings during a hurricane and damaged a grain-loading facility along
the waterway, it was a vessel for purposes of admiralty tort jurisdiction and
the Louisiana Rule, which stipulates that a moving vessel that strikes a
stationary object is presumed to be at fault;Ê Admiralty Jurisdiction: since
the collision occurred in navigable waters due to the imperfect mooring of a
nearly complete vessel, the incident bore a substantial relationship to
traditional maritime activity & was properly within admiralty tort
jurisdiction; Government Regulation: the grain-loading facility was not in
violation of a 33 U.S.C. 403, which requires a permit for structures that
partially obstruct a waterway, since the facility was grandfathered under
government regulations & did not interfere with navigation; thus the
Pennsylvania Rule, which bars a plaintiff in violation of a federal statute from
recovering damages unless that plaintiff can prove that its own violation could
not have caused the loss, is not applicable.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/11thbunge.html
Please click below for other sections:
Section A
Section B
Section C
Section D
Please click below to go back to the Cargo Letter home page.
Cargo Letter Home Page
Return to the top of Section E
Written from wire stories, the Associated Press, Reuters, Hong Kong Shipping News Lloyds & other world sources.