Mesocap Ind. Limited v. Lines

Decision Date12 November 1999
Docket NumberNo. 99-08145,99-08145
Citation194 F.3d 1342
Parties(11th Cir. 1999) MESOCAP IND. LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TORM LINES, Defendant-Appellee
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Before EDMONDSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and OWENS*, Senior District Judge.

OWENS, Jr., Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff Mesocap Industries Limited (Mesocap) and Tradelink Exports Corp. (Tradelink), on September 25, 1998, brought this Admiralty action to recover from defendant Torm Lines (Torm) for damage to Mesocap cargo that Torm carried on its vessel in 1996 from Savannah, Georgia to Calabar, Nigeria by way of Cotonou, Benin. Over Mesocap's opposition, Torm moved under F.R.Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss Mesocap's Complaint because it was filed more than one year after the delivery of goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered, and is therefore barred by the one-year limitation period of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 U.S.C.A App. 1300-1315 (1994). The district court granted Torm's Motion to Dismiss based on the reasoning in Bunge Edible Oil Corp. v. M/V Torm Rask, 756 F.Supp. 261 (E.D. La. 1991), aff'd 949 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1992)(An unreasonable course deviation by a carrier does not prevent it from invoking COGSA's one-year limitation period because the limitation has no conceptual nexus with cargo risk allocation). Mesocap and Tradelink appeal the district court's grant of defendant Torm's Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Torm's COGSA time limitation defense is precluded because Torm substantially deviated from the contract's delivery terms. We affirm the district court.

I. Background

Mesocap contracted with Torm for the shipment of three containers of goods from Savannah, Georgia to Calabar, Nigeria aboard Torm's vessel, the M/V ESTETURM. The containers were discharged at Cotonou, Benin on March 13, 1996. On March 16, 1996 Mesocap obtained "a pre-clearance approval/advanced release" from Torm's agent at Cotonou permitting the shipment of the three containers to continue on to Calabar, Nigeria. However, Torm did not ship the containers to Calabar. Eventually, Mesocap made arrangements with OT Africa Lines to complete the shipment of the containers, and OT Africa shipped two of the three containers to Port Harcourt, Nigeria in December, 1996. The cargo in the third container was discovered to be "moldy and rotten" due to salt water damage. Plaintiffs allege that the damage, totaling $110, 646.55, took place while aboard Torm's M/V ESTETURM.

II. Issue on Appeal

Plaintiffs concede that suit was not brought within COGSA's one-year limitation period. The issue presented by this appeal is whether an unreasonable course deviation by an ocean common carrier prevents the carrier from invoking COGSA's one-year limitation for bringing suit on a cargo damage claim.

III. Standard of Review

In reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss, the appellate court must accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and may affirm the dismissal of the complaint "only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 81 L.Ed.2d 59, 65, 104 S.Ct. 2229 (1984); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2 L.Ed. 80, 85-86, 78 S.Ct. 99 (1957). The Appellate Court reviews the District Court's legal conclusions de novo. G.S.W., Inc. v. Long County, 999 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1993).

IV. Discussion

COGSA is a comprehensive statute intended to limit the liability of carriers engaged in international shipping. Unimac Co., Inc. v. C.F. Ocean Service, Inc., 43 F.3d 1434, 1436 (11th Cir. 1995). It applies to "all contracts for carriage of goods by sea to or from ports of the United States in foreign trade." Id., citing 46 U.S.C.A.App. 1312. The Statute defines "foreign trade" as "the transportation of goods between the ports of the United States and ports of foreign countries." Id. Because the dispute between Mesocap and Torm stems from a contract for the shipment of goods from Savannah, Georgia to Calabar, Nigeria, COGSA governs this transaction.

Torm argues that the district court correctly concluded that COGSA bars Mesocap's recovery. The relevant provision of COGSA's one-year limitation period, 46 U.S.C.A.App. 1303(6), provides that "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." Torm argues that Mesocap's claim is barred because Mesocap had custody and control of the cargo no later than December 1996 when Mesocap made arrangements with OT Africa Lines to transport the cargo to Contonou, Nigeria and Mesocap did not file its complaint until September 25, 1998, more than one year after delivery**. Mesocap acknowledges that if COGSA applies, the carrier is discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage since suit was not brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered, but argues that Torm unreasonably deviated from the contract nullifying the contract of carriage and making COGSA inapplicable, citing Unimac Co., Inc. v. C.F. Ocean Service, 43 F.3d 1434, 1437 (11th Cir. 1995).

Torm concedes, for the purposes of appeal, that it unreasonably deviated from the contract of carriage, but argues that, as a matter of law, it nevertheless must prevail. The issue, then, is whether an unreasonable course deviation by a carrier prevents it from invoking COGSA's one-year limitation period.

The effect of a deviation on the COGSA time bar is unsettled in this circuit. Two district court cases from the Southern District of Florida have reached different conclusions on this issue, See Birdsall, Inc. v. Tramore Trading Co., Inc., 771 F.Supp. 1193, 1198-1199 (S.D. Fla. 1991)(upholding the COGSA one-year time limitation despite a deviation), and Allstate Insurance Co. v. International Shipping Corp., 1982 A.M.C. 1763, 1769 (S.D. Fla. 1981)(holding that a deviation nullifies the time limitation), aff'd on other grounds, 703 F.2d 497 (1983)(holding that no one-year limitation period was applicable to the action, hence, no need to reach any other issues (such as whether a deviation nullifies the time limitation)), but this court has not specifically addressed the issue. This court, however, has addressed the COGSA's $500 per package limitation on liability, but in doing so declined to reach the one year limitation in Unimac Co., Inc. v. C.F. Ocean Service,43 F.3d 1434, 1437 n.5 (11th Cir. 1995)("we need not decide whether a deviation would strip a carrier of both the $500 limitation on liability and the statute of limitations, or as the Fifth Circuit has held, merely of the liability limitation, and not of the one-year statute of limitations"). Further, while this court in Hale Container Line, Inc. v. Houston Sea Packing Co., 137 F.3d 1455 (11th Cir. 1998), quoted Unimac for the following proposition: "The doctrine of deviation provides that, when a ship deviates from the contract of carriage or varies the conduct in the carriage of goods, increasing the risk of shipment of the goods, COGSA does not apply because the bill of lading, which acts as the contract of carriage, is nullified," it did not distinguish between the $500 liability limitation and the one-year limitation as Unimac indicated was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Shelter Forest Int'l Acquisition, Inc. v. Cosco Shipping (USA) Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • July 28, 2020
    ...any event, even "an unreasonable course deviation does not nullify COGSA's one year statute of limitations." Mesocap Indus. v. Torm Lines, 194 F.3d 1342, 1343-45 (11th Cir. 1999).Therefore, SFI's claims related to the Chippewa Falls Shipment accrued no later than June 14, 2018, the date of ......
  • National Feder. of Republican Assemblies v. U.S., CIV.A. 00-0759-RV-C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • May 31, 2001
    ...any set of facts which could be proven to be consistent with the allegations contained in the pleading. See Mesocap Indus. Ltd. v. Torm Lines, 194 F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir.1999). The court must as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the no......
  • Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff's Office
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • January 9, 2017
    ...that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Mesocap Ind. Ltd. v. Torm Lines , 194 F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted). We review a district court's decision to dismiss a case for failure to comply with an ord......
  • Hapag-Lloyd (Am.), LLC, v. Orly Indus.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • October 4, 2022
    ... ... July 28, 2004); Junior Gallery v ... Neptune Orient Lines , Civ. A. No. 94-4518, 1998 WL ... 770558 at *4, 1998 U.S. Dist ... Mesocap Indus. v. Torm Lines , 194 F.3d 1342, 1345 ... (11th Cir. 1999) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Admiralty Law - George M. Earle
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 51-4, June 2000
    • Invalid date
    ...and South Carolina. Member, Maritime Law Association. Member, Southeastern Admiralty Law Institute. 1. Mesocap Indus. Ltd. v. Torm Lines, 194 F.3d 1342, 1345 (11th Cir. 1999). 2. Rose v. M/V GULF STREAM FALCON, 186 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 1999); Galehead, Inc. v. M/V ANGLIA, 183 F.3d 1242 (11t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT