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: 
2:13-cv-03620 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
District of New Jersey
Date Filed: 
Jun 11 2013


8. On or about October 23, 2012, a consignment, consisting of 500 bags of Piccotac 1098 Hydrocarbon Resin, then being in good order and condition, was laden into container GESU2053874 and was delivered to defendants and/or their agents at the port of New York for transportation to Jakarta, Indonesia in consideration of an agreed upon freight, pursuant to Export Booking Number 93406328.

9. The consignment sat at defendant Global's facilities for six (6) days awaiting ocean transportation by defendant Hapag-Lloyd as the entire New York City region braced and prepared for Hurricane Sandy, forecasted to make landfall on or about October 29, 2012.

10. On or about October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy made landfall and the subject cargo sustained severe water damage due to water infiltration as a result of tidal surge.

11. Despite these clear and present warnings of the impending storm, defendants did not move or otherwise transport the consignment away from the flood risk terminal.

12. As a result, the damaged cargo had to be transported back to Plaintiffs plant located at 402 Main Street, Belle Vernon, Pennsylvania 15012.

13. The cargo required reprocessing and repacking, resulting in a loss of $7,533.92.

14. 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 defendants and/or their agents.

15. Defendants and/or their agents failed to take all reasonable measures and precautions to prevent damage to the subject cargo in light of the impending, forecasted, and highly publicized storm.

16. 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 no less than $7,533.92.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
1. That process in due form of law may issue against defendants citing them to appear and answer all and singular the matters aforesaid;
2. That judgment may be entered in favor of plaintiff against defendants, jointly and severally, for the amount of plaintiff s damages in the amount of at least $7,533.92, together with interests, costs and the disbursements of this action; and
3. 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.