Francosteel Corporation v. SS Tien Cheung, 71 Civ. 5472.
| Decision Date | 18 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 71 Civ. 5472.,71 Civ. 5472. |
| Citation | 375 F. Supp. 794 |
| Parties | FRANCOSTEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. S. S. TIEN CHEUNG, her engines, boilers, etc., and Tien Cheung Navigation Co., Ltd., Defendants. TIEN CHEUNG NAVIGATION CO., LTD., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. RETLA STEAMSHIP CO., Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Vincent J. Barra, New York City (Dougherty, Ryan, Mahoney, Pellegrino & Giuffra, New York City, of counsel), for defendant and third-party plaintiff.
Edward J. McMurrer, New York City (Mendes & Mount, New York City, of counsel), for third-party defendant.
The third-party defendant, Retla Steamship Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Retla"), moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that the claim interposed against it is time-barred. The motion is denied.
The issue raised by the instant motion is whether the one year statute of limitations contained in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act COGSA, 46 U.S.C. 1303(6), is applicable to a third-party indemnity claim. The statute provides, in pertinent part, that:
"In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered: Provided, That if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered . . ."
The present action arises from a claim for water damage to a cargo of tinplate which accrued in the plaintiff's favor on January 9, 1970 (the date of delivery). Under the terms of the COGSA statute of limitations this action would have become time-barred on January 9, 1971. However, the plaintiff and the defendants agreed to waive the one year period and plaintiff interposed its claim on December 15, 1971. Defendant (and third-party plaintiff), Tien Cheung Navigation Co., Ltd., commenced the third-party action for indemnity on October 6, 1972.
The court notes at the outset that the timeliness of the primary claim has not been contested on the motion. The extensions of time in which to commence suit granted by the defendants to the plaintiff are not subject to challenge. United Fruit Co. v. J. A. Folger & Co., 270 F.2d 666 (5 Cir. 1959); Toyomenka, Inc. v. Toko Kaiun Kabushiki Kaisha, 342 F.Supp. 292 (S.D.Texas 1972); Monarch Industrial Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 276 F. Supp. 972 (S.D.N.Y.1967).
Retla's sole contention on the motion is that the third-party claim for indemnity is time-barred under the COGSA Statute of limitations because it was interposed more than one year after the cargo was delivered. The case cited by the movant almost exclusively in support of its position, Grace Lines, Inc. v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp., 416 F.2d 977 (5 Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 939, 90 S.Ct. 1843, 26 L.Ed.2d 271 (1970), is readily distinguishable from the instant case. In Grace Lines the shipowner and the charterer entered into a charter party which incorporated COGSA. The charterer, as carrier, issued a bill of lading governed by COGSA. Both the charter and the bill were subject to COGSA's one year statute of limitations. The plaintiff in Grace Lines brought a timely suit against the charterer, however the charterer's claim for indemnity was interposed against the shipowner after the one year period....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Vessel Thomas E. Cuffe, 74-93.
...been determined. See States Steamship Co. v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 9 Cir. 1964, 339 F.2d 66, 70; Francosteel Corp. v. S. S. Tien Cheung, S.D.N.Y.1973, 375 F.Supp. 794. But the cause of action does, in fact, accrue before then; if it did not, Avondale could not even assert it in ......
-
Hercules, Inc. v. Stevens Shipping Co., Inc.
...where contract between plaintiff and defendant in indemnification action does not incorporate COGSA); Francosteel Corp. v. S/S Tien Chung, 375 F.Supp. 794, 796 (S.D.N.Y.1973) (Grace Lines not applicable since no proof that COGSA applies to charter party between third-party plaintiff and thi......
-
COMPLAINT OF AMERICAN EXPORT LINES, INC.
...698 F.2d 726 (5th Cir.1983) (Former 5th en banc); Prudential Lines, Inc. v. General Tire Int'l Co., supra; Francosteel Corp. v. S.S. Tien Cheung, 375 F.Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). This rule has been applied in actions against the United States pursuant to the FTCA to allow parties to maintai......
-
Hercules, Inc. v. Stevens Shipping Co., Inc.
...(7th Cir. 1976); Prudential Lines, Inc. v. General Tire International, 440 F.Supp. 556 (S.D.N.Y. 1977); Francosteel Corporation v. S.S. Tien Cheung, 375 F.Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); Mitsui & Co (U.S.A.) v. Toko Kaiun Kabushiki Kaisha, 342 F.Supp. 14 (S.D.Tex. 1972); Toyomenka, Inc. v. Toko ......