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 "SHAN HE" 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-05649 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Aug 15 2011

"1. This action involves admiralty and maritime claims within the meaning of Rule 9(h) with respect to the carriage of the subject cargo by sea and with respect to multimodal carriage under through bills of lading involving substantial ocean carriage.  This action also falls within the Court’s pendent, ancillary, and supplemental jurisdictionas to the remaining aspects of the claim. Plaintiff seeks recovery for cargo loss and
damage caused by defendants’ breaches of contract and torts.

2. 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, sues herein as the subrogated insurer of the cargo in suit, having paid the insurance claimof Autopart International, Inc., who was at all material times a “merchant” as defined in defendants’ bills of lading and was also the consignee, purchaser and owner of the cargo.

3. The captioned defendants are believed to be corporations organized under the laws of foreign sovereigns. Upon information and belief defendants are engaged in the business of common carriers of cargo for hire and the provision of services related to such activities, and conduct such business with respect to shipments to, from and within the State of New York.

4. Defendant Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. (“Hanjing”) was at all material times a vessel-operating common carrier and the owner and/or operator of the vessels which carried the shipment in suit from the place of receipt to the place of delivery.

5. For the shipment in suit Hanjin issued as carrier Hanjin Shipping sea waybill HJSCTPE012194600 dated July 6, 2010.

6. Defendant Seven Ocean Forwarding Services Ltd. (“Seven Ocean”) was at all material times a non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) and maintained an ocean transportation intermediary bond no. 980710 with the Federal Maritime
Commission of the United States.

7. For the shipment in suit Seven Ocean issued its bill of lading TCHBOS070014 dated July 6, 2010.

8. The Seven Ocean bill of lading provides that said defendant will be responsible for the acts and omissions of any person of whose services it makes use for the performance of the contract evidenced by the bill of lading.

9. At all material times defendant Hanjin was an entity whose services were used by Seven Seas for the performance of the carriage of the shipment from the place of receipt to the place of delivery.

10. Upon information and belief the captioned vessels are now, or will be during the pendency of this action, within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Honorable Court or is otherwise subject to jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

11. This action involves damage, including water damage, to a shipment of auto mufflers which were in good order and condition when delivered to defendants at or near Taichung, Taiwan, and which moved in carrier-provided container HJCU1526266 aboard the M/V “HANJIN DALLAS”, Voyage 45E, and the M/V “SHAN HE”, Voyage 0195E, to Boston, Massachusetts, by way of Kaohsiung as described more fully in Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd. Waybill HJSCTPE012194600 dated July 6, 2010 (booking no. TPE012194600) and Seven Ocean Forwarding Services Ltd. TCHBOS070014 dated July 6, 2010.

12. The aforesaid Hanjin waybill includes the following descriptions of the
cargo:
“2382 PACKAGES IN TOTAL”
“2382 PKGS AUTO MUFFLER”

13. The Seven Ocean bill of lading includes the following description:
“1 CTNR. SAID TO CONTAIN: 2382 PACKAGES
“2382 PKGS S.T.C. 2381 PCS + 1 CTN (25PCS)

14. Each bill of lading disclosed the weight of the cargo as 15,504 kilograms.

15. Although the shipment was in good order and condition when delivered into defendants’ care, custody, and control, at the time of delivery the cargo was in damaged condition.

16. Said damage, which included rust, corrosion and pitting caused by water ingress into defendants’ container, rendered the mufflers unfit for intended distribution and sale.

17. The aforementioned damage was caused by the unseaworthiness of the carrying vessels and container as well as defendants’ willful and reckless failure to properly load, stow, lash, carry, discharge, deliver and care for the subject cargo, and their unreasonable deviations from the terms of the contract of carriage.

18. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff and those on whose behalf it sues, has sustained damages in the amount of $17,833.74 for which defendants are jointly and severally liable as common carriers bailees and/or warehousemen for hire.

19. Plaintiff sues 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.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $17,833.74 together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the costs of this action and prays that this Honorable Court issue its process against the aforesaid vessels in rem."

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.