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

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. HAPAG-LLOYD AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

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.

Case Number: 
1:15-cv-01083 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Feb 17 2015

Plaintiff, INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA a/s/o
NALCO COMPANY, by and through its attorneys, Casey & Barnett LLC, as and for its
Complaint, alleges upon information and belief as follows:

JURISDICTION
1. This is an admiralty and maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §1333.

PARTIES
2. At all material times, plaintiff Indemnity Insurance Company of North America
(hereinafter “IINA” or “Plaintiff”) was and is a corporation with an office and place of business
located at 10 Exchange Place, Jersey City, New Jersey 07302, and is the subrogated underwriter
of a consignment of Chemicals laden on board the M/V ADELHEID S, as more specifically
described below.
3. At all material times, Nalco Company (hereinafter "Nalco" or "Plaintiff') was and
is a corporation with an office and place of business located at 1601 West Diehl Drive,
Naperville, ILL 60563, and is the shipper and owner of a consignment of Chemicals laden on
board the M/V ADELHEID S, as more specifically described below.
4. At all material times, defendant, HAPAG-LLOYD AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
(hereinafter “Hapag-Lloyd” or “defendant”) was and is a foreign corporation with an office and
place of business located at 399 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854 and at all relevant times, was
and is still doing business in this jurisdiction and was at all relevant times the owner and/or
operator of the M/V ADELHEID S.
5. Plaintiff brings this action on its own behalf and as agent and/or trustee on behalf
of and for the interest of all parties who may be or become interested in the said consignment, as
their respective interests may ultimately appear, and plaintiff is entitled to maintain this action.

AS AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION
6. On or about December 30, 2013, at Joliet, Illinois there was delivered to
defendant and/or its agents, a consignment consisting of 47 Drums Chemicals and 33 Pails
Chemicals, all laden in container number GESU 9171267, then being in good order and
condition, which said defendant received and accepted and in consideration of certain freight
charges thereupon paid or agreed to be paid, agreed to transport and carry the said consignment
to Nagoya, Japan via Oakland, California.
7. Defendants received the subject consignment on or about December 30,2013, and
issued bill of lading number HLCUATL131223581 dated December 30,2013.
8. Pursuant to the booking instructions and dock receipt, the container temperature
was to be set at +15C; however, the bill of lading instructions erroneously stated that the
temperature was “TO BE SET AT -15 C”.
9. At some point during transit the container was set at -15C, which caused physical
damage to the cargo, resulting in its total loss.
10. Asa result, plaintiff sustained a loss of no less than $56,099.63.
11. 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.
12. At all times relevant hereto, a contract of insurance for property damage was in
effect between Nalco with IINA, which provided coverage for, among other things, loss or
damage to the subject consignment.
13. Pursuant to the aforementioned contract of insurance between Nalco and IINA,
monies have been expended on behalf of Nalco to the detriment of IINA due to the damages
sustained during this transit.
14. As IINA has sustained damages as a result of said expenditures, expenditures
rightly the responsibility of defendants, IINA has an equitable right of subrogation and is
subrogated, to the extent of the expenditures, to the rights of its insured with respect to any and
all claims for damages against the defendant.
15. 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 $56,099.63.

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 plaintiffs damages in the amount of at least $56,099.63, 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.