504 F.Supp. 1239 (N.D.Ill. 1981), 80 C 3476, Hughes-Gibb & Co., Ltd. v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc.
|Docket Nº:||80 C 3476.|
|Citation:||504 F.Supp. 1239|
|Party Name:||HUGHES-GIBB & CO., LTD., Underwriters of Lloyds of London as Subrogee of Ag-World Export, Inc., Plaintiff, v. The FLYING TIGER LINE, INC., Defendant.|
|Case Date:||January 12, 1981|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 7th Circuit, Northern District of Illinois|
Karen Mellow, Conklin & Adler, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
C. Kevin McCabe, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
BUA, District Judge.
This cause comes before the court on the motion of the defendant herein, the Flying Tiger Line, Inc., for summary judgment. 1 Rule 56(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. As in the matter at bar the defendant's potential liability is predicated upon an interpretation of the Warsaw Convention, 49 U.S.C. s 1502 note, and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, subject matter jurisdiction over the cause properly lies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1331(a).
In the matter at bar, the plaintiff, Hughes-Gibb & Co., Ltd., seeks to recover, in its capacity as subrogee, for the loss of 72 breeding swine (out of a shipment of 130) sustained by its subrogor-insured, Ag-World Export, Inc. This loss, Hughes-Gibb contends, was due to and resulted from the defendant's alleged mishandling of the subject swine while they were being transported by Flying Tiger from Chicago, Illinois to Manila, Philippines.
In the summer of 1978, the 130 breeding swine forming the basis of this litigation were located in Bloomington, Illinois. During that summer, Ag-World Exports (the Shipper), the owner of the swine, contracted to have them sold to South Cotabato Hog Raisers, Inc. (the Consignee), a Philippine hog merchant. In conjunction with this sale, the Shipper also contracted with the defendant (the Carrier) to have the 130 pigs transported from the United States to the Philippines.
Although their ultimate destination was Davao City, Philippines, it appears that under
the terms of the Ag-World Flying Tiger Line contract of carriage, as embodied in Airway Bill 023-19658796, the defendant was obligated to carry the pigs only from Chicago to Manila, Philippines. Carriage from Manila to Davao City was to be by Philippine Aerotransport, apparently pursuant to a separate transportation agreement. See Defendant's Exhibit B-1. 2
The 130 breeding swine debarked Chicago for the Philippines on July 12, 1978, aboard an airliner owned and operated by the defendant. Upon their arrival in Manila on July 14, it was discovered that 60 of the pigs had died, allegedly as a result of suffocation during the flight. These 60 pigs were certified as dead on arrival by a Philippines' Customs Examiner, a representative of the Philippines Bureau of Animal Industry, and by a representative of the defendant. Plaintiff's Exhibit A. According to the plaintiff, the dead animals were then rendered, without autopsy, to the National Slaughterhouse of the Bureau of Animal Industry.
At the Manila airport, the 70 surviving boars and gilts were transferred, by the Shipper's agent, to a Philippine Aerotransport aircraft, and flown the same day (July 14) to Davao City. Defendant's Exhibit B-3. According to the plaintiff, 3 more pigs died during that flight. That having occurred, when the 67 surviving swine were off-loaded in Davao City, they were immediately placed in the custody of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and were quarantined for a period of 30 days. 9 more pigs are alleged to have died during this quarantine period. At the expiration of the quarantine, the remaining 58 pigs were released to the Consignee.
On August 28, 1978, the Consignee presented a claim to the defendant for the loss of the original 60 head of breeding swine. Defendant's Exhibit A. Written notice of South Cotabato's claim for the loss of the other 12 pigs was provided to Flying Tiger sometime in January of 1979. Defendant's Exhibit A.
In its motion for summary judgment, Flying Tiger contends first that any claims against it in this matter will be governed solely by the provisions of Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention; and secondly that, since the plaintiff's subrogor did not give Flying...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP