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

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. CARGO CONTAINERS LLC

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 www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Court Type: 
Federal

Plaintiff, INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA a/s/o THE HOME
DEPOT, INC., by and through its attorneys, CASEY & BARNETT, LLC, as and for its
Complaint, alleges upon information and belief as follows:

INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action to recover for damages sustained to plaintiffs cargo stolen while in the
care and custody of defendant CARGO CONTAINERS LLC, a common carrier of goods.
PARTIES
2. At all material times, INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
(hereinafter "IINA" or "Plaintiff) was and is a Delaware corporation with an office and place of
business located at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106 , and is the subrogated
underwriter of a consignment of Heater Products as more specifically described below.
3. At all material times, THE HOME DEPOT, INC. (hereinafter "Home Depot" or
"Plaintiff) was and is a Delaware corporation with an office and place of business located at
2455 Paces Ferry Road, C-20, Atlanta, Georgia, and was the owner, consignee, bailor and/or
assured of a consignment of Heater Products, as more fully described below.
4. At all material times, defendant CARGO CONTAINERS LLC, (hereinafter "Cargo
Containers" or "Defendant") was and is a limited liability corporation organized and existing by
virtue of the laws of New Jersey with an office and place of business located at 75 Fairmount
Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey 07304.
5. Cargo Containers a common carrier of goods for hire, by road haulage.

JURISDICTION
6. The Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to the provisions of the Carmack
Amendment, 49 USC § 14706 in that it involves the interstate transportation of goods by road,
and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337 in that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

RELEVANT FACTS
7. At all material times Cargo Containers was a common carrier of goods for hire.
8. Upon information and belief, on or prior to September 2013, Home Depot and/or its
agent entered into a contract for the carriage of a container load of Electric Heaters from Jersey
City, New Jersey to Breinigsville, Pennsylvania.
9. On September 6, 2013 The Home delivered a container, identification number TCLU
651209-1, containing 885 packages Electric Heaters, to Cargo Containers in Jersey City, New
Jersey for transit to Pennsylvania.
10. Cargo Containers received and accepted container TCLU 651209-1.
11. Defendant Cargo Containers noted no exceptions to the good order and condition of the
container at the time and place of its receipt and acceptance.
12. On or about September 7, 2013 defendant Cargo Containers reported that container
TCLU 651209-1 had been stolen while situated at Cargo Containers premises, 75 Fairmount
Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey.
13. At all material times, Cargo Containers had exclusive control and access to Plaintiffs
goods.
14. At all material times, Cargo Containers had a duty to protect the property of Plaintiff
entrusted to it from damage and destruction.
15. Home Depot, as a bailor and as a customer of the Cargo Containers, reasonably relied
upon Cargo Containers to perform and carry out its duties as a common carrier of goods for hire.
16. Cargo Containers breached its duty and was negligent in failing to protect, store and
deliver Home Depot's cargo to its intended destination.
17. But for the failure of Cargo Containers to properly care for plaintiffs goods in its
capacity as a common carrier in all respects at all times, Plaintiff would not have incurred
damages.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and breach of duties by Defendant
Cargo Containers, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the approximate amount of $86,184.80.
19. The damage to the cargo was not the result of any act or omission of the Plaintiff but, to
the contrary, was due solely as the result of the negligence, fault, neglect, breach of contract of
carriage, and bailment on the part of the Defendant and/or its agents.
20. At all times relevant hereto, a contract of insurance for property damage was in effect
between Home Depot and UNA, which provided coverage for, among other things, loss or
damage to the consignment.
21. Pursuant to the aforementioned contract of insurance between Home Depot and IINA,
monies have been expended on behalf of Home Depot to the detriment of IINA due to the
damages sustained during transit.
22. As IINA has sustained damages as a result of said expenditures, expenditures rightly the
responsibility of the defendant, IINA has an equitable right of subrogation and is subrogated, to
the extent of its expenditures, to the rights of its insured with respect to any and all claims for
damages against the defendant.
23. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has sustained losses which will be shown with
specificity at trial, no part of which has been paid, although duly demanded, which are presently
estimated to be $86,184.80.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
1. That process in due form of law may issue against Defendant citing it to appear
and answer all and singular the matters aforesaid;
2. That judgment may be entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant for the
amount of Plaintiff s damages in the amount of at least $86,184.80, together with interests, costs
and the disbursements of this action: and
That this Court grant to Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and
proper.

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.