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: 
1:14-cv-05979 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Jul 31 2014

TRADING (USA), INC., by and through its attorneys, Casey ft Baruett LLC, as and for its
Complaint, alleges upon information and belief as follows:
L This is an admiralty and maritime claim within me meaning of Rule 9(h) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §1333.
AMERICA (hereinafter "UNA" or "Plaintiff-) was and is a corporation with an office and piace
of business iocated a, 10 Exchange Place, Jersey City, New Jersey 07302, and is the subrogated
underwriter of a consignment of 25 Bales Scrap Metal laden on board the MA/ CARIBBEAN
VOYAGER as more specifically described below.
3. At all material times, AMI TRADING (USA), INC. (hereinafter "AMI" or
"Plaintiff") was and is a corporation organized and existing by virtue of one of the states of the
United States with an office and place of business located at 1699 Coral Way, Ste 400, Miami,
FL. 33145, and was the owner/shipper of the consignment of Scrap Metal on board the M/V
CARIBBEAN VOYAGER, as more specifically described below.
4. At all material times, defendant, MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY,
S.A. (hereinafter "MSC") was and is a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws
of a foreign state with an office and place of business located at 420 Fifth Avenue, New York,
New York 10018 and at all relevant times, was and is still doing business within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court as a common carrier.
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 consignments,
as their respective interests may ultimately appear, and plaintiff is entitled to maintain this action.
6. On or about May 27, 2013, a consignment consisting of 25 Bales Scrap Metal,
laden in container number MEDU 8315820, with a weight of 20,458 metric tons, then being in
MSC and/or its agents in Port Au Prince, Haiti in consideration of an agreed upon freight paid in
Miami, Florida, pursuant to MSC bill of lading number MSCUH9019228 dated May 27, 2013,
for transportation to Mafang, Zhaoqing, China.
7. Thereafter, the aforementioned consignment was loaded aboard the M/V
CARIBBEAN VOYAGER and the vessel sailed for its intended destination.
8. On or about August 12, 2013, container number MEDU 8315 820 was delivered to
the cargo receiver in Mafang, Zhaoqing, China.
9. Upon discharge and delivery, it was discovered that the container had been
breached and 1500 tons of Scrap Metal were missing and non-delivered.
10. As a result of the foregoing, AMI sustained a loss of $7,392.77 for the
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 AMI and IINA, which provided coverage for, among other things, loss or damage
to the consignment.
13. Pursuant to the aforementioned contract of insurance between AMI and IINA,
monies have been expended on behalf of AMI to the detriment of IINA due to the damages
sustained during transit.
14. 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.
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 $7,392.77.
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 $7,392.77, 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

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.