New York Underwriters Insurance Co. v. MS WURTTEMBERG

Decision Date10 November 1964
Citation235 F. Supp. 909
PartiesNEW YORK UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., Libellant, v. M.S. WURTTEMBERG, her engines, etc., and Ozean/Stinnes-Linien Gemeinschaftsdienst (Ozean-Linie G.m.b.H. Hugo Stinnes); "Brenntag" Mineralol-Chemikalien-U. Schiffahrts-Ges.M.B.M.-Partenreederei and Partenreederei M/S Wurtenberg, Respondents.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Hill, Rivkins, Louis & Warburton, New York City, Alan S. Loesberg, New York City, of counsel, for libellant.

Cichanowicz & Callan, New York City, Michael J. Ryan, New York City, of counsel, for respondent Ozean/Stinnes-Linien Gemeinschaftsdienst (Ozean-Linie G.m.b.H. Hugo Stinnes).

BONSAL, District Judge.

Respondent Ozean/Stinnes-Linien Gemeinschaftsdienst (Ozean-Linie G.m.b. H. Hugo Stinnes) moves to dismiss this libel for cargo damage on the ground that the bills of lading require that the matter be litigated in the courts of Hamburg, Germany, the port of registry of the M/S WURTTEMBERG. Libellant is the subrogee of the German consignees of certain liner board shipments which were allegedly damaged during a voyage of the M/S WURTTEMBERG owned by respondent. The damage, in the amount of $2,800., allegedly occurred during a severe storm on a voyage between Savannah and the ports of Rotterdam and Bremen.

At the time of shipment from Savannah, the carrier issued to the shippers its short form bill of lading "at the shipper's convenience and at its request", which incorporated by reference the carrier's regular form of bill of lading and provided that the bill of lading was subject to the provisions of the U. S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). The carrier's regular form of bill of lading provides, in clause XVII, that,

"Any claim against the carrier arising under this Bill of Lading shall be decided according to the Hague Rules contained in the International Convention of certain Rules relating to Bills of Lading, * * * as enacted in the German Commercial Code * * *, except as provided elsewhere herein, and in the German Courts in Hamburg, to the jurisdiction of which the Carrier submits himself. * * *"

Respondent contends that libellant's claim should be made in the courts of Hamburg, in accordance with the bill of lading, which would be the most convenient forum.*

Libellant opposes the motion on the grounds: (1) that this Court should reserve jurisdiction under General Motors Overseas Corporation v. S. S. Goettingen, 225 F.Supp. 902 (S.D.N.Y.1964); and (2) that the small amount involved would not warrant the expense of pursuing the claim in the German courts.

There appears to be a division of authority on the issue presented in this motion. The Fifth Circuit holds that such jurisdictional clauses...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Indussa Corporation v. Ranborg
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 25, 1967
    ...to the foreign court that it expected the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act would be applied. See N. Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. M. S. Wurttemberg, 235 F.Supp. 909, 910 (S.D.N.Y.1964). Cf. Murillo Ltda. v. The Bio Bio, 127 F.Supp. 13, 16 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd mem., 227 F.2d 519 (2 Cir. 1955); Takemu......
  • Erskine & Sons, Inc. v. NUITED STATES
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • November 23, 1964

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