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

OUR "E" Section: The Forwarder Broker World

7. New U.S. Transport Related Legal Cases

Yang Ming v. Okamoto Freighters
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
August 7, 2001
Carriage of Goods/Indemnity: the ocean carrier was entitled to indemnity under bill of lading from the NVOCC/shipper pursuant to the NVOCC/shipper's breach of the warranty of the description of the cargo; the containers were said to have contained cigarettes & cigars, but instead contained worthless used tires, which resulted in the ocean carrier suffering demurrage, shifting, terminal handling, transshipment & customs charges after containers were rejected by consignee & abandoned by the NVOCC/shipper; the NVOCC/shipper was in turn entitled to indemnity from the initial shipper of the goods under the house bill of lading that the NVOCC/shipper had issued to initial shipper which also contained a warranty of cargo description. 
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/9thyangming.pdf

Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Labarca
First Circuit Court of Appeals
August 2, 2001
Marine Insurance: since vessel was unseaworthy at the time she sank (because hoses that supplied sea water to air conditioning units were left unsealed after repair work) and this unseaworthy condition was the cause of the sinking -- underwriters were relieved of any obligation under the hull insurance policy.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/1stlabarca.html

Eott Energy v. Winethur Swiss Insurance
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
July 20, 2001
Foreign Sovereign Immunity: since defendant insurance company is not directly owned by Ireland, but rather held through an intermediate holding company owned by Ireland, it is not itself an "instrumentality of a foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act ("FSIA"); even though the insurance company is not directly owned by Ireland, it is still possible for it to be an "organ" of a foreign state as defined by § 1603(b)(2) of the FSIA; since the record is unclear, the case will be remanded (sent back) to the District Court to determine whether the company acted as an "organ" of a foreign state by engaging in "a public activity on behalf of the foreign government." 
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/9theott.pdf