Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies


ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
1:14-cv-06984 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Aug 27 2014

This action also falls within the Court's
federal question, pendent, ancillary, and supplemental jurisdiction. Plaintiff seeks
recovery for cargo damage caused by defendants' breaches of contract and torts.
2. Plaintiff Indemnity Insurance Company of North America ("IINA") is a
corporation organized under the laws of, and with its principal place of business in, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and sues herein as subrogee and assignee of Virginia
Imports Ltd., who was at all material times the consignee, purchaser and owner of the
cargo in suit, and the holder of the subject bill of lading.
3. Defendants American President Line Ltd. and APL Co. Pte. Ltd. (jointly
"APL") are believed to be corporations organized under the laws of foreign sovereigns
and/or certain of the fifty states.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the in personam defendants, who conduct
business in the State of New York as common carriers of cargo for hire and the provision
of services related thereto. In addition, by virtue of the forum selection clause in the bill
of lading issued for the shipment, defendants have consented to venue and jurisdiction in
the Southern District of New York.
5. Upon information and belief the captioned vessel is now, or will be during
the pendency of this action, within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court or is otherwise subject to jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4(k) (2) Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the forum selection clause in the bill of lading in suit.
6. This action involves damage, including damage due to exposure to
excessive temperatures, to a shipment of 1,626 cartons of wine moved in carrierprovided
container APZU437892/9 and was tendered to defendants in good order and
condition at or near Adelaide, Australia, on or about August 6, ,2013 (hereinafter "the
Shipment"). Defendants carried the Shipment from Adelaide, Australia, to Norfolk,
Virgina, with ocean carriage aboard the M/V "SANTA PL ACID A" Voyage 076 and the
M/V "MOL PRESENCE" Voyage 042, as described more fully in APL bill of lading
APLU071436076 dated on or about August 6, 2013, and others. (Booking no.:
7. The aforesaid damage, which occurred while the Shipment was in the care
custody and/or control of defendants or entities action on their behalf, was caused by
defendants' reckless failure to properly load, stow, carry, protect, store, care for and
deliver the subject the Shipment and the unseaworthiness of the carrying vessel and
8. As a result of the aforesaid plaintiff sustained damages in the amount of
$63,020.80 for which, defendants are liable to plaintiff as common carriers, bailees
and/or warehousemen for hire.
9. Plaintiff sues herein on its own behalf and as agent and trustee for and on
behalf of anyone else who may now have or hereafter acquire an interest in this action.
10. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 9 of this complaint.
11. Defendants were aware that the Shipment consisted of wine and their
statutory and contractual obligations, as well as their warranties under the general
maritime law, included the nondelegable duty to provide the type of care which the
nature of the Shipment required.
12. During the period of defendants' custody, the Shipment was exposed to
excessive temperatures which caused damage to the subject wine shipment.
13. This caused damage to the cargo and rendered it unfit for intended sale,
distribution and human consumption.
14. The claimed damage to the Shipment was caused in whole or in part by
defendants' breaches of their duties of care under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46
U.S.C. § 30701, the contact of carriage and the general maritime law.
15. As a result of the aforesaid plaintiff sustained damages in the amount of
$63,020.80 no part of which has been paid although duly demanded.
16. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 9 of this complaint.
17. At the time the aforementioned damage to the Shipment occurred
defendants, together with the entities they hired to act on their behalf, were acting as
bailees of the Shipments and in their own capacity, or through their contractors, agents,
servants or sub-bailees, had a duty to safely and properly keep, care for and deliver the
Shipment in the same good order and condition as when entrusted to them.
18. Defendants also had a duty to ensure that the services provided for the
Shipment were performed with reasonable care and in a non-negligent and workmanlike
19. Defendants breached their duties and obligations as bailees by delivering
the Shipment to the consignee in damaged and depreciated condition, including damage
caused by exposure to heat, instead of in good order and condition.
20. As proximate result of the foregoing plaintiff and those on whose behalf it
sues has sustained damages in the amount of $63,020.80, as nearly as can presently be
estimated, no part of which has been paid although duly demanded.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the captioned defendants
American President Lines Ltd. and APL Co. Pte. Ltd., jointly and severally in the
amount of $63,020.80, plus incidental expenses including survey fees, in addition to
interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the costs of this action and respectfully requests
that the Court issue its process against the aforesaid vessel in rem.

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.