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

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. M/V HANJIN ELIZABETH et al

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: 
1:11-cv-03884 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Jun 7 2011

"RELEVANT FACTS

7. On or about May 25, 2010, a consignment, consisting of 108 cartons containing 2,348 submersible pump motors, laden into container number WFHU1214290, then being in good order and condition, was delivered to the M/V HANJIN ELIZABETH and to the in personam defendant and/or their agents at the port of Shanghai, China for transportation to Seneca Falls, New York, in consideration of an agreed upon freight, pursuant to Yang Ming bill of lading number YMLUE230138843W, dated May 25, 2010.

8. Thereafter, the aforementioned consignment was loaded aboard the M/V HANJIN ELIZABETH, Yang Ming bill of lading number YMLUE230138843 W was issued and the vessel sailed for its intended destination.

9. On or about June 25, 2010, the consignment arrived at its final destination.

10. Upon delivery of the container to the receiver at destination, 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 salt water damages during transit.

11. As a result of the damages sustained to the shipment, ITT sustained a loss.

12. 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.

13. At all times relevant hereto, a contract of insurance for property damage was in effect between ITT and IINA, which provided coverage for, among other things, loss or damage to the consignment.

14. Pursuant to the aforementioned contract of insurance between ITT and IINA, monies have been expended on behalf of ITT to the detriment of IINA due to the damages sustained during transit.

15. As IINA has sustained damages as a result of said expenditures, expenditures rightly the responsibility of the defendants, 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 defendants.

16. 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 $235,000."

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.

Javascript is required to view this map.