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: 
1:11-cv-03604 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
May 26 2011


4. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 3 of this complaint.

5. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USCA § 1331. There is also diversity pendent, ancillary and supplemental jurisdiction as to certain aspects of the claim in suit. The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000.00.

6. This cause of action arises under a treaty of the United States, specifically the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, 49 Stat. 3000, T.S. No. 876 (1934), reprinted in note following 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1502 (the "Warsaw Convention"), and certain amendments, protocols and successor treaties thereto in effect in the country of origin and destination at the time of shipment. Alternatively, this cause of action is governed by the Convention for Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Done at Montreal on 28 May 1999, reprinted in S. Treaty Doc. No 106-45, 1999 WL 33292734 (2000) (entered into force Nov. 4, 2003) (“Montreal Convention”).

7. This action involve damage and loss to a shipment of tobacco bobbins which moved from the Dominican Republic to the United States, as described more fully in American Airlines Cargo air waybill 001-7867-1935 dated on or about August 3, 2010, and others.

8. Said damage and loss was the result of defendants’ fault, recklessness, wanton neglect, and willful misconduct in that defendants, their agents, servants, connecting carriers, subcontractors, terminal operators, truck drivers, warehousemen and employees failed to properly handle, protect and care for the cargo in question and in that defendants had no proper and effective procedures to receive, handle, carry, transfer and care for the cargo

9. By reason of the aforesaid plaintiff, and those on whose behalf it sues, has sustained damages in the amount of $79,237.45, plus incidental expenses including survey fees, no part of which has been paid although duly demanded.

10. 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. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION



11. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 10 of this complaint.

12. When the cargo was received into the care, custody and control of defendants, or those entities acting on their behalf, the cargo was in good order and condition.

13. However, defendants failed to make delivery of the entire cargo at the intended destination in the same order and condition. Instead the cargo was in damaged and depreciated condition at the time of delivery.

14. Therefore, defendants, as common carriers, bailees, and/or warehousemen, are liable to plaintiff for the claimed damage and loss to the cargo in suit.



15. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs through 5 and 7 through 10 of this complaint.

16. Defendants breached their duty of care with respect to accessorial services they contracted to provide for the subject shipment.

17. Said breaches constitute material deviations and/or fundamental breaches of the governing accessorial contracts.

18. As a result, defendants are liable without limitation of any kind for the full amount of plaintiff’s damages.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly and severally:
(a) for the sum of $79,237.45, plus incidental expenses
including survey fees;
(b) for prejudgment interest at the rate of 9% per annum;
(c) for the costs and disbursements of this action;
(d) for such"

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.

Javascript is required to view this map.