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-06417 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Sep 14 2011


1. 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 state of Pennsylvania, and maintains an office at 140 Broadway, New York, New York,
and sues herein as subrogated insurer of Parallel Technology, LLC who was at all material times the consignee, purchaser and owner of the cargo, and the entity entitled to receive the shipment.

2. Defendants Martinair, Martinair Holland NV, Martin Air Holland; Martinair Cargo, Associated Transports and Associated Transports S.A., are believed to be corporations organized under the laws of, and with their principal places of business in, certain foreign sovereigns.

3. Defendant Land Air Express Inc. is believed to be a corporation organized under the laws of one of the fifty states with a registered agent for service of process in New York.

4. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over defendants, who conduct business in the State of New York and the United States as a whole.

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.

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 involves damage to a shipment of electronic equipment which moved from France to the United States, as described more fully in Martin Air Holland air waybill 129 5337 7811 dated on or about September 29, 2010, and Associated Transports air waybill ASO10034915 dated on or about September 29, 2010, and others.

8. Defendant Land Air Express Inc. provided truck transportation for the shipment from the intermediate airport to the destination airport.

9. Said damage 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

10. By reason of the aforesaid plaintiff, and those on whose behalf it sues, has sustained damages in the amount of $47,120.45, no part of which has been paid although duly demanded.

11. 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.

12. Plaintiff, and those on whose behalf it sues, has performed all conditions precedent required of it under the premises.


13. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12 of this complaint.

14. 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.

15. 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 and was unfit for intended usage.

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

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.