Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Dimond Rigging Co.
| Decision Date | 26 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1: 13 CV 01329 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
| Parties | FEDERAL MARINE TERMINALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DIMOND RIGGING COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a ABSOLUTE RIGGING & MILLWRIGHTS, Defendant. DIMOND RIGGING COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a ABSOLUTE RIGGING & MILLWRIGHTS, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL MARINE TERMINALS, INC., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF # 26) filed by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. ("FMT") on the Amended Counterclaim of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Dimond Rigging Company, LLC, d/b/a/ Absolute Rigging & Millwrights ("Absolute"). Absolute has responded to the Motion, and FMT has replied. Thus, the Motion is ripe for consideration. For the reasons stated herein, summary judgment is GRANTED to FMT on Absolute's Amended Counterclaim.
This is a maritime dispute in which FMT seeks to recover three unpaid invoices for storage and terminal services for Absolute's cargo. Absolute, by way of its Amended Counterclaim, seeks damages arising out of FMT's loading of a vessel prior to international carriage.
The cargo at the center of the parties' disputes consists of a large transfer stamping press from a defunct Chrysler plant in Twinsburg, Ohio. Absolute dismantled the press and transported it to the Port of Cleveland for shipment to China. In total, there were about 132 pieces of press equipment (the "Equipment").
Absolute contracted with BDP International ("BDP") to act as Absolute's agent in arranging for shipment of all of the Equipment. BDP informed Absolute that Logitrans International ("Logitrans"), an unlicensed non-vessel operating common carrier, would ship all of the Equipment. However, Logitrans did not own a vessel. Thus, Logitrans contracted with Scan-Trans, Inc. ("Scan-Trans"), a vessel charterer that operated the M/V Gisele Scan, to have the M/V Gisele Scan physically carry all 132 pieces of Equipment on behalf of Absolute.
Absolute hired FMT, a terminal operator providing stevedoring and other services at the Port of Cleveland, to provide storage and terminal services at the port prior to loading any of the Equipment. FMT claims that it separately was hired as an independent contractor to Scan-Trans to load the Equipment onto the M/V Gisele Scan; Absolute appears to contest that FMT was an independent contractor to Scan-Trans.
FMT loaded only 98 of the 132 pieces of Equipment onto the M/V Gisele Scan. Two bills of lading were issued with respect to the 98 pieces of cargo shipped from Cleveland toChina. Only those 98 pieces were identified in the two bills of lading. Thirty-four (34) pieces of Equipment were never loaded onto any vessel by FMT, and were never identified in the bills of lading.
When Absolute contracted with Logitrans for the carriage, Ronald Lech of Absolute signed a booking note memorializing its agreement with the carrier, and the applicability of the bills of lading. The booking note stated, "It is hereby agreed that this Contract shall be performed subject to the terms contained in Page 1 and 2 hereof which shall prevail over any previous arrangements and which shall in turn be superseded (except as to deadfreight and demurrage) by the terms of the Bill of Lading, the terms of which in full or in exact, are found on the reverse side hereof." Absolute was provided with a copy of the carrier's bill of lading form, which ultimately was issued for the cargo that was loaded.
Absolute was named as the shipper on the bills of lading. The bills of lading incorporated terms and conditions which were printed on the backside of each bill of lading. Those terms and conditions contained an "Additional Clause", which states as follows:
(ii) If the U.S. COGSA applies, and unless the nature and value of the cargo has been declared by the shipper before the cargo has been handed over to the Carrier and inserted in this Bill of Lading, the Carrier shall in no event be or become liable for any loss or damage to the cargo in an amount exceeding USD 500 per package or customary freight unit.
The bills of lading further contained the following provision, referred to as a "Himalaya clause," and entitled "Defenses and Limits of Liability for the Carrier, Servants and Agents":
The vessel carrying the 98 pieces of Equipment arrived in China on March 21, 2012. The cargo was released to the consignee in China on May 17, 2012. Absolute filed its Counterclaim against FMT on August 9, 2013.
Originally, Absolute sought damages for both the 98 pieces of Equipment that shipped to China, and the 34 pieces that were not loaded on a vessel. Now, in the Amended Counterclaim, Absolute seeks damages only for the 34 pieces of Equipment that were never identified in the bills of lading and never loaded onto any vessel by FMT.
Summary judgment under Rule 56 is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions,answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits show "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed .R. Civ. P. 56(a). "The moving party has the initial burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists," and the court must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Vaughn v. Lawrenceburg Power Sys., 269 F.3d 703, 710 (6th Cir. 2001). When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported and the nonmoving party fails to respond with a showing sufficient to establish an essential element of its case, summary judgment is appropriate. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
With regard to the non-moving party's obligation to set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial, "Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment." Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 379-80 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Rather, "Rule 56 allocates that duty to the opponent of the motion, which is required to point out the evidence, albeit evidence that is already in the record, that creates an issue of fact." Id. Accordingly, the ultimate inquiry is whether the record, as a whole, and upon viewing it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, could lead a rational trier of fact to find in favor of the non-moving party. Matushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87. The Court's inquiry, therefore, asks whether reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the non-moving party is entitled to a verdict. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
The physical loading of a vessel is governed by maritime law. Orgulf Transport Co. v. Hill's Marine Enterprises, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1061 (S.D. Ill. 2002) (). The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S. C. § 30701 (previously codified at 46 U.S.C.§ 1303(6)) ("COGSA") applies to "all contracts for the carriage of goods by sea to or from ports of the United States in foreign trade." Fortis Corporate Ins., SA v. Viken Ship Management AS, 597 F.3d 784, 787 (6th Cir. 2010). COGSA contains a one-year statute of limitations for cargo claims, which runs from the date of the delivery of the goods, or the date when the goods should have been delivered. 46 U.S.C. § 1303(6).1
Absolute seeks damages arising solely out of FMT's alleged negligence in loading (or failing to load) the 34 pieces of Equipment onto the M/V Gisele Scan. The question here is whether, as FMT claims, the one-year statute of limitations contained in COGSA bars Absolute's claims against FMT which allege wrongdoing in the loading process. For the reasons discussed below, the Court believes that it does.
As set forth previously, the bills of lading in this case contain an "Additional Clause" which explicitly provides that COGSA governs before loading, after discharge, and the entire time that the Cargo is in the carrier's possession. Thus, there is no debate that COGSA would govern activities during loading.
The bills of lading also contain a Himalaya clause, which extends the protections of COGSA - including its statute of limitations - to any agent of the carrier, including independentcontractors, for damages arising from the agent's negligence or default while acting in connection with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial