Hartford Fire Ins. v. Orient Overseas Lines
| Decision Date | 01 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 99-9502 |
| Citation | 230 F.3d 549 |
| Parties | (2nd Cir. 2000) HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO., a/s/o Trek Bicycle Corp., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINERS LINES (UK) LTD., OOCL (EUROPE) LTD., ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE, AND OOCL (USA) INC., Defendants Appellants |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Douglas F. Eaton, Magistrate Judge) granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and awarding damages for stolen cargo. The District Court held that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA"), 46 U.S.C. §§ 1300 et seq., governed the entire intermodal carriage of goods and, therefore, the limitation-of-liability provision in COGSA applied to defendants' liability for cargo lost during transport by truck following discharge from vessel.
Vacated and remanded.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] DAVID L. MAZAROLI, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
THOMAS L. TISDALE, Tisdale & Lennon, LLC, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: WALKER and CABRANES, Circuit Judges, and HODGES, District Judge.*
We are asked to decide the law to be applied to the loss of cargo during an "intermodal" shipment of goods-that is, a shipment carried by water and land transportation on a single bill of lading. Defendants Orient Overseas Containers Lines (UK) Ltd., OOCL (Europe) Ltd., Orient Overseas Container Line, and OOCL (USA) Inc. appeal from a November 24, 1999 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Douglas F. Eaton, Magistrate Judge). That Court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Co. ("Hartford") and awarded damages for cargo shipped originally from Wisconsin and stolen in Belgium during the final land segment of a shipment to The Netherlands under a bill of lading issued by defendants to Hartford's insured and subrogor, Trek Bicycles Corp. ("Trek"). The District Court concluded that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA"), 46 U.S.C. §§1300 et seq., governed the entire intermodal carriage from Wisconsin to The Netherlands and, therefore, that COGSA's limitation-of-liability provision applied even though the cargo was lost while being transported by truck in Europe after discharge from the vessel. For the reasons stated below, we vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In August 1996, defendant OOCL (USA) Inc., as agent for defendant OOCL (UK) Ltd.,1 entered into a one-year service agreement with Trek to move certain cargo containers from Wisconsin to various destinations in Europe. Two months later, OOCL (UK) issued to Trek a "through bill of lading"2 for the shipment of a container of 301 packages of bicycles and bicycle framesets from Oconomowoc, Wisconsin to Spijkenisse, The Netherlands. The bill of lading indicated that OOCL (UK) would serve as the "Carrier" for the water segment of the carriage, while other unnamed "Participating Carriers" would transport the container for the land portions of the carriage.
Pursuant to this arrangement, the container was picked up at Trek's facility in Oconomowoc and transported by truck to Chicago. From Chicago, the container was moved by rail to Montreal, Canada, where it was loaded onto defendants' vessel, the M/V OOCL Bravery. Defendants transported the container by sea from Montreal to Antwerp, Belgium, and then discharged it to a participating carrier who was supposed to transport it by truck to the consignee's premises in Spijkenisse.
Defendants had selected DeBrock Gebr. Transport, N.V. ("DeBrock") as their trucker between Antwerp and inland destinations in Europe, but DeBrock subcontracted with N.V. Groeninghe ("Groeninghe") to transport Trek's container from Antwerp to Spijkenisse. On October 29, 1996, a Groeninghe truck picked up the container from defendants' ship at Antwerp. Later that evening, thieves stole the truck, together with the container of Trek's bicycles, after the truck had been left on a public road without any supervision or guard near the driver's domicile in Deurne, Belgium. The police were able to track down approximately 30 of Trek's 301 stolen packages, but the remainder were never recovered.
In November 1996, Trek filed a claim with its insurer, Hartford, for the value of the missing packages. Hartford reimbursed Trek on the claim and then, as subrogated insurer, commenced the instant action for recovery of the value of the missing cargo plus incidental expenses. Defendants responded by setting forth two reasons for why their liability should be limited under Clause 4 of the bill of lading.3 First, they maintained that, as the "Carrier" under the bill of lading, they were exonerated from liability under Clause 4 because the cargo was lost while in the custody of a "Participating Carrier." Second, they contended that, even if they were liable under the bill, Clause 4 subjected their liability to the limits established by the law governing the particular transport stage during which the goods were stolen-namely, the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, May 19, 1956, 399 U.N.T.S. 189 et seq. ("CMR").
In its Memorandum and Order dated November 19, 1999, the District Court rejected both of these arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of Hartford. Holding that COGSA "applies to the entire intermodal carriage, including the period of time when the goods were in the trucker's custody," the Court concluded that defendants could not avail themselves of either the exoneration provision in the bill of lading (Clause 4) or CMR's limitation-of-liability provision, because both provisions are inconsistent with COGSA.4 Section 3(8) of COGSA provides that:
[a]ny clause . . . in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier or the ship from liability . . . arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this section, or lessening such liability otherwise than as provided in this Chapter, shall be null and void and of no effect.
46 U.S.C. § 1303(8). COGSA, therefore, prohibits a carrier from reducing its liability by inserting an exculpatory clause in its shipping contract. The District Court found that defendants' invocation of the exoneration provision in the bill of lading and CMR's limitation-of-liability provision was an attempt to circumvent this prohibition. Accordingly, it declined to apply either provision.
The District Court also found that the application of CMR's limitation-of-liability provision would violate the "fair opportunity" doctrine, which is a federal common law doctrine developed in admiralty. Under the "fair opportunity" doctrine, a shipper must have had a "fair opportunity" to declare a higher liability value for its cargo in order for a carrier to limit its liability under COGSA. See General Elec. Co. v. MV Nedlloyd, 817 F.2d 1022, 1028 (2d Cir. 1987). Applying this doctrine, the District Court found that defendants had failed to provide the shipper, Trek, with an opportunity to declare a cargo value higher than CMR's limit. Accordingly, the Court refused to limit Hartford's recovery under CMR and granted summary judgment in Hartford's favor for the full market value of the unrecovered cargo plus incidental costs. Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal on December 17, 1999, and an Amended Notice of Appeal on February 1, 2000.
We consider at the outset Hartford's claim that we lack appellate jurisdiction as to defendants OOCL (USA) Inc. and OOCL (Europe) Ltd. because they failed to file a timely appeal. Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a party to file an appeal within 30 days of entry of judgment.5 Hartford maintains that OOCL (UK) was the only defendant identified in the initial Notice of Appeal, and that 45 days had elapsed before other defendants were specifically designated as appealing parties in the Amended Notice of Appeal. Hartford contends that we must therefore dismiss this appeal with respect to defendants OOCL (USA) and OOCL (Europe).
Hartford is correct that the Amended Notice of Appeal is untimely, but dismissal is not warranted in the circumstances presented here because the initial Notice of Appeal provided adequate notice of the intent of all defendants to appeal. The Rules provide that "[a]n appeal must not be dismissed for informality of form . . . or for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice." FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(4). The test for determining whether a Notice of Appeal is adequate "is whether it is objectively clear that a party intended to appeal." FED. R. APP. P. 3(c) advisory committee note (1993 amendment); see also Maerki v. Wilson, 128 F.3d 1005, 1007 (2d Cir. 1997) (). In this case, the initial Notice of Appeal refers in a parenthetical phrase to every defendant.6 The caption of the Notice also lists each defendant as a party to the case. Such references demonstrate a clear intention by all defendants to appeal the District Court's judgment. Cf. Agee v. Paramount Communications, Inc., 114 F.3d 395, 399-400 (2d Cir. 1997) (). Accordingly, we conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction over every defendant and proceed to the merits of the appeal.
Our primary task is to determine the appropriate law that governs the final overland portion of the carriage. To complete this task, we must first address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
In its complaint, Hartford alleges that this case falls within both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Viking Pump Inc. v. Century Indem. Co. . Warren Pumps Llc.
...Consol. Edison, 98 N.Y.2d at 221-22, 746 N.Y.S.2d 622, 774 N.E.2d 687; see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Orient Overseas Containers Lines (UK) Ltd., 230 F.3d 549, 558 (2d Cir.2000) (“[A]n interpretation that gives a reasonable and effective meaning to all terms of a contract is preferable ......
-
In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig.
...Cargill, Inc. v. Charles Kowsky Res., Inc., 949 F.2d 51, 55 (2d Cir. 1991) ); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Orient Overseas Containers Lines (UK) Ltd., 230 F.3d 549, 556 (2d Cir. 2000) ("Absent fraud or violation of public policy, a court is to apply the law selected in the contract as......
-
Msf Holding Ltd. v. Fiduciary Trust Co. Intern., 03 Civ. 1818(PKL).
...the law selected is that of a state with sufficient contacts to the transaction. See, e.g., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Orient Overseas Containers Lines (UK) Ltd., 230 F.3d 549, 556 (2d Cir.2000); Int'l Minerals & Res., S.A. v. Pappas, 96 F.3d 586, 592 (2d Cir.1996). The choice-of-law provisi......
-
Breatie and Osborn Llp v. Patriot Scientific Corp.
...Non-Ferrous Metals Trading Co., 179 F.Supp.2d 118, 136 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (Keenan, J.)); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Orient Overseas Containers Lines (UK) Ltd., 230 F.3d 549, 556 (2d Cir.2000) ("New York law is clear in cases involving a contract with an express choice-of-law provision: ......