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-00055 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Jan 6 2014

9. On or about December 19, 2012, a consignment, consisting of 9,773 cases of
Chocolates laden into containers EIMU 4698412 and EIMU 4697993, then being in good order
and condition, was delivered to the M/V SKOGAFOSS and to defendants Pacific Carrier, W
Bockstiegel and Eimskip and/or their agents at Wuerselen, Germany for transportation to Boston,
Massachusetts via Rotterdam, Netherlands and Reykjavik, Iceland, in consideration of an agreed
upon freight, pursuant to Eimskip bills of lading numbers EIMUSKO302REW006 and
EIMUSKO302REW015, each dated December 19, 2012 and the aforementioned bills of lading
were issued.
10. On or about December 29, 2012, the aforementioned consignments were
transshipped aboard the M/V SKOGAFOSS in Reykjavik, Iceland and stowed on the foredeck of
the vessel for transit to Boston, Massachusetts.
11. During the ocean transit from Iceland to Massachusetts the vessel encountered a
storm which caused water to board the vessel and which caused physical damage to, inter alia,
the aforementioned two containers laden with Plaintiffs chocolates.
12. Upon discharge of the containers in Boston on or about January 15, 2013, and as a
result of the foregoing, it was discovered that the consignment was not in the same good order
and condition as when received by the defendants, but instead, had suffered wetting and physical
damage during the ocean transit.
13. As a result of the damages sustained to the shipment, Lindt sustained a loss.
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.
15. At all times relevant hereto, a contract of insurance for property damage was in
effect between Lindt and UNA, which provided coverage for, among other things, loss or
damage to the consignment.
16. Pursuant to the aforementioned contract of insurance between Lindt and UNA,
monies have been expended on behalf of Lindt to the detriment of UNA due to the damages
sustained during transit.
17. As UNA has sustained damages as a result of said expenditures, expenditures
rightly the responsibility of the defendant, UNA 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.
18. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been 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 $155,000.

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.