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-06419 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. Plaintiff maintains an office at 140 Broadway, New York, New York, and sues herein as subrogated insurer of the cargo in suit, having paid the insurance claim of Censea, Inc. and for and on behalf of the shipper, consignee and owner of the cargo as their interests may appear.

2. Defendant is believed to be a corporation organized under the laws of, and with its principal place of business in, one of the fifty states.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this action arises from the carriage of goods in interstate commerce and is governed by the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, and federal statutes and federal common law related thereto.
Concurrently there is pendent, ancillary and supplemental jurisdiction as to certain aspects of the claim in suit.

4. Upon information and belief defendant at all material times conducted business within the State of New York, including the pickup, carriage and delivery of cargo, and the provision of services related thereto, and is subject to the in personam jurisdiction of this Court. In additional defendant has a statutorily required registered agent for service of process in New York.

5. This action involves damage to a shipment of 300 cartons of frozen shrimp (Lot Nos. 73777R and 77117N) which moved from Newark, New Jersey, and Raynham, Massachusetts, to Robesonia, Pennsylvania, as described more fully in bills of lading dated on or about September 17 and 18, 2009, and others. (Freight Order no.: 0297750, Invoice no.: 0271819-IN)

6. Said damage was the result of defendant’s reckless failure to properly carry and care for the cargo in suit during all periods of custody.

7. By reason of the aforesaid, plaintiff, and those on whose behalf it sues, has sustained damages in the amount of $13,445.32, including incidental expenses, no part of which has been paid although duly demanded.
8. 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.

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

10. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 of this complaint.

11. On or about September 17 and 18, 2009 the cargo in suit was delivered in good order and condition into the custody and control of defendant for purposes of carriage to the agreed destination.

12. Defendant failed to deliver the cargo at the agreed destination in the same good order and condition. Instead certain cargo sustained damage during transport which rendered it unfit for intended usage.

13. The damage to the cargo was not caused by circumstances which would give rise to a defense or exception to liability under the Carmack Amendment.

14. As a result of the aforesaid, defendant is liable to plaintiff as common carrier of cargo for hire."

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.