Michelena & Co. v. American Export & Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-65.,17-65. |
| Parties | MICHELENA & CO., Inc., Libelant, v. AMERICAN EXPORT AND ISBRANDTSEN LINES, INC. and New Light Fire & Marine Insurance Company Limited, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Francisco Ponsa Feliú, Wilson Colberg, San Juan, P. R., for libelant.
Pieras & Martin, San Juan, P. R., for respondents.
This case is now before the Court on a motion by Respondent to dismiss the cause of action on the grounds that the libel was brought after the statute of limitations had run.
It has not been disputed that the libel was brought after the one year period provided by law in these cases under the Carriage of Goods By Sea Act, 46 U.S. C.A. § 1300 et seq., had elapsed. Neither has it been disputed that Libelant did not expressly request or obtain an extension of time wherein to sue.
Libelant urges, on the other hand, that he was led to believe by Respondents that the matter would be settled extra-judicially and that conversations and approaches were had along those lines, even as late as March and May 1965. Libel was filed in July 1965. Respondent does not deny this is so; but asserts that, irrespective of those approaches, the statute runs automatically and is not thereby interrupted.
During the course of the hearing of this motion, this Judge asked the attorney for the defendant whether his interpretation of the law was so strict as to permit the following situation:
A person who believes he has a claim under the law, contacted promptly the person whom he believes responsible for his damages. The potential respondent entertains verbally or otherwise his claim and both commence negotiations toward a possible settlement. Negotiations take some time and, after having discussed the matter for a period of almost one year, on the very night of the last day of the year of the term of the statute of limitations, after twelve o'clock, the potential respondent informs the potential libelant: The answer given to this hypothetical situation by the proctor for the respondent was, "Yes, your Honor, I believe that that is the law." We do not agree. This Court can not impute to the Congress such an absurdity and such an act of injustice. It is true that the law seems to be clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mikinberg v. Baltic S.S. Co.
...(S.D.Fla.1991); Hemis Trading Corp. v. Navieras de Puerto Rico, 705 F.Supp. 72, 74 (D.P.R.1989); Michelena & Co. v. American Export and Isbrandten Lines, Inc., 258 F.Supp. 479, 480 (D.P.R.1966). The question is not whether the statute was tolled while the investigation was being processed, ......
-
Modern Office System v. AIM CARIBBEAN EXP., Civ. No. 91-1794 (RLA).
...or impediment of a carrier to invoke a time bar provision in its favor are not present in this case. Michelena & Co. v. American Export and Isbrandtsen Lines, 258 F.Supp. 479 (D.P.R.1966); Fireman's Ins. Co. of In Michelena, a carrier was estopped from raising the one year limitations perio......
-
Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, NJ v. Gulf Puerto Rico Lines, Inc.
...the time-for-suit provision. In order to sustain its position the plaintiff cites the case of Michelena & Co. v. American Export & Isbrandtsen Lines, 258 F. Supp. 479 (D.C.P.R.1966) and makes reference to an affidavit signed by Mr. Fred Hegner, Claims Supervisor for the adjustment bureau th......
-
Birdsall, Inc. v. Tramore Trading Co., Inc.
...BIRDSALL or induced not to initiate litigation during the requisite time period. TRAMORE's reliance on Michelena & Co. v. American Export & Isbrandtsen Lines, 258 F.Supp. 479 (D.P.R.1966), where the doctrine of estoppel was applied to prevent the defendant from raising a statute of limitati......