Underwriters at Interest v. All Logistics Grp., Inc.

Decision Date25 May 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 1:19-cv-21889-KMM
Citation483 F.Supp.3d 1199
Parties UNDERWRITERS AT INTEREST, a/s/o High Liner Foods (USA) Inc., Plaintiff, v. ALL LOGISTICS GROUP, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Lan Chile, S.A., Third-Party Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

Mitchell Leslie Shadowitz, Shadowitz Associates, P.A., Boca Raton, FL, for Plaintiff.

Michael Charles Black, Michael Ricobaldi, Michael C. Black, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff.

Victor Jose Pelaez, Fowler White Burnett, P.A., Miami, FL, for Third-Party Defendant.

ORDER

K. MICHAEL MOORE, UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Underwriters at Interest's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl.’s Mot.") (ECF No. 77), Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff All Logistics Group, Inc.’s ("All Logistics Group") Motion for Summary Judgment ("All Logistics Group's Mot.") (ECF No. 79) and Third-Party Defendant Lan Chile, S.A.’s ("Lan Chile") Motion for Summary Judgment1 ("Lan Chile's Mot.") (ECF No. 82). The Motions are now ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND2

This action arises out of an international shipment of salmon (the "Cargo"), that was exposed to elevated temperatures while in transport. Pl.’s 56.1 ¶¶ 5, 20–21. Lan Chile is an air carrier company that was responsible for shipping the Cargo from Chile to the Miami International Airport. All Logistics Group's 56.1 ¶¶ 1, 3; Lan Chile's Resp. to All Logistics Group's 56.1 ¶¶ 1, 3. All Logistics Group is a motor-carrier transportation business that was responsible for transporting the Cargo from Miami International Airport to the Slade Gorton Warehouse in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Pl.’s 56.1 ¶¶ 6–9. High Liner Foods was the consignee of the Cargo. See ("Air Waybills") (ECF No. 79–1). Plaintiff is High Liner Food's insurer. Pl.’s 56.1 ¶¶ 1, 26. Plaintiff paid High Liner Food's claim for the loss of the Cargo and High Liner Foods assigned to Plaintiff its right to recover from the party responsible for the damage. Id. ¶ 26.

All Logistics Group agreed to pick up the Cargo on May 10, 2017 from the Miami International Airport and transport it to the Slade Gorton warehouse in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Id. ¶¶ 6–9. However, due to an internal miscommunication, All Logistics Group did not pick up the Cargo from the Miami International Airport until May 13, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 9–10, 12–15; Lan Chile's 56.1 ¶¶ 58–59, 64–66. The Cargo remained in the possession of Lan Chile at the Miami International Airport between May 10, 2017 and May 13, 2017. Lan Chile's 56.1 ¶ 8. After picking up the Cargo on May 13, 2017, All Logistics Group stored the Cargo overnight and delivered the Cargo to the Slade Gorton warehouse on May 14, 2017. Pl.’s 56.1 ¶¶ 15, 18; All Logistics Group's Resp. to Pl.’s 56.1 ¶¶ 15–16. Upon arrival at the Slade Gorton warehouse, High Liner Foods determined that the Cargo had been exposed to warm temperatures.3 Pl.’s 56.1 ¶¶ 20–21. High Liner determined that the Cargo was spoiled due to the Cargo's exposure to warm temperatures.4 Id. ¶ 21.

On May 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against All Logistics Group for the loss of the Cargo. See generally Complaint ("Compl.") (ECF No. 1). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) breach of contract and (2) negligence against All Logistics Group. See generally id. On October 15, 2019, All Logistics Group filed a third-party complaint against Lan Chile. Third-Party Complaint (ECF No. 28). Subsequently, on December 6, 2019, All Logistics Group filed an Amended Third-Party Complaint against Lan Chile. ("Am. Third-Party Compl.") (ECF No. 54). In the Amended Third-Party Complaint, All Logistics Group alleges two claims against Lan Chile: (1) negligence and (2) common law indemnification. See generally id.

Now, Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against All Logistics Group. See generally Pl.’s Mot. Further, All Logistics Group moves for summary judgment against Lan Chile on the issue of liability. See generally All Logistics Group's Mot. Finally, Lan Chile moves for summary judgment on All Logistics Group's claims against Lan Chile for negligence and indemnification. See generally Lan Chile's Mot.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact [such] that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ). A genuine issue of material fact exists when "a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citation omitted). "For factual issues to be considered genuine, they must have a real basis in the record." Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc. , 588 F.3d 1291, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Speculation cannot create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat a well-supported motion for summary judgment. Cordoba v. Dillard's, Inc. , 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005).

The moving party has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc. , 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). In assessing whether the moving party has met this burden, a court must view the movant's evidence and all factual inferences arising from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Denney v. City of Albany , 247 F.3d 1172, 1181 (11th Cir. 2001). Once the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to present evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment. Bailey v. Allgas, Inc. , 284 F.3d 1237, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002) ; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). "If reasonable minds could differ on the inferences arising from undisputed facts, then a court should deny summary judgment." Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store, Inc. , 975 F.2d 1518, 1534 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). But if the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial, and summary judgment is proper.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Logistics Group

Plaintiff moves summary judgment on its claim for breach of contract against All Logistics Group. See generally Pl.’s Mot. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that All Logistics Group failed to pick up the Cargo on the date it contracted to do so, resulting in damage to the Cargo. Id. at 4–5. In response, All Logistics Group argues that (1) motor carriers are not liable for damage which occurred prior to the motor carrier's receipt of the cargo; and (2) Plaintiff did not present evidence that the Cargo was actually damaged. All Logistics Group's Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. at 4–7. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden establishing that Plaintiff and All Logistics Group had a contract and All Logistics Group breached the contract. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met its burden establishing that (1) the breach damaged Plaintiff; and (2) that the damage award includes the full value of the Cargo.

Under Florida law, "[t]he elements of an action for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a contract, (2) a breach of the contract, and (3) damages resulting from the breach." Rollins, Inc. v. Butland , 951 So.2d 860, 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (citation omitted). "A party cannot recover damages for breach of contract unless it can prove that the damages were proximately caused by the breach." Crowley Am. Transp., Inc. v. Richard Sewing Mach. Co. , 172 F.3d 781, 784 (11th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). "Damages recoverable by a party injured by a breach of contract are those that naturally flow from the breach and can reasonably be said to have been contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was entered into." Mnemonics, Inc. v. Max Davis Assocs., Inc., 808 So.2d 1278, 1280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (citation omitted). For damages to be foreseeable, the parties need not contemplate the precise injury which occurred so long as the actual consequences could have reasonably been expected to flow from the breach. Nat. Kitchen, Inc. v. Am. Transworld Corp. , 449 So.2d 855, 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff has met its burden establishing that the Parties had a contract and All Logistics Group breached that contract. Namely, Plaintiff presented evidence establishing that the parties reached an agreement, through a broker, which included a date for performance. Pl.’s 56.1 ¶¶ 6–7, 9–10. And, it is undisputed that All Logistics Group failed to pick up the Cargo on the agreed upon date, which is a breach of the contract. Id. ¶¶ 10–15; Franconia Assoc. v. United States , 536 U.S. 129, 142–43, 122 S.Ct. 1993, 153 L.Ed.2d 132 (2002) ("Failure by the promisor to perform at the time indicated for performance in the contract establishes an immediate breach.") (citation omitted). Moreover, All Logistics Group does not dispute that the Parties had an agreement and All Logistics Group failed to perform. See generally All Logistics Group's Resp. to Pl.’s 56.1; All Logistics Group's Resp. to Pl.’s Mot.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ("If a party ... fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact ... the court may ... consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion."). Because Plaintiff has satisfied its initial burden, the burden shifts to All Logistics Group to present evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment. Bailey , 284 F.3d at 1243 ; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

All Logistics Group has not shown that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to All Logistics Group's breach of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re Jan. 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 26 Enero 2022
    ...1189 adopted in relevant part by 2021 WL 1996437 (S.D. Fla. May 19, 2021) ; Underwriters at Interest v. All Logistics Grp., Inc. , 483 F. Supp. 3d 1199, 1211–13 (S.D. Fla. 2020). Tiara did not address the duty element of negligence claims, and thus, it did not impose a general tort duty to ......
  • Silberman v. Premier Beauty & Health LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 22 Septiembre 2021
    ...recovery for common law indemnity is precluded if both parties are at fault, no matter how slight the fault of the party seeking indemnity.” Id. “To be wholly without fault means that the basis of the claim for indemnification does not arise out of any conduct or act of the party seeking in......

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