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: 
1:12-cv-02591 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Apr 4 2012


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 Arkansas Steel Associates LLC who was at all material times the owner and intended consignee of the cargo in suit.

2. Defendants UPS Ground Freight, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc., both believed to be doing business as UPS Freight, (jointly “UPS Freight”) are believed to be corporations organized under the laws of, and with their principal places of business in, certain 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 UPS Freight at all material times conducted business as a common carrier of cargo for hire including with respect to the pick up, carriage and delivery of cargo in the State of New York, and the provision of services related thereto.

5. UPS Freight has a statutorily required registered agent in New York.

6. This action involves the loss by UPS Freight of a shipment of steel mill motor coupling parts (hereinafter “the shipment”) which moved, or was intended to move, by road from St. Louis, Missouri, to New Orleans, Louisiana, as described more fully in UPS Freight bill no. 543 382 173 dated on or about March 31, 2011, and others. (Pick up no.: CCS/9204828).

7. The shipment was received into the care, custody and control of UPS Freight at or near St. Louis in good order and condition.

8. Although UPS Freight represented in a tracking report that the shipment was delivered to the consignee on April 25, 2011, in fact no such delivery had been performed.

9. UPS Freight has admitted that the shipment was never delivered to the intended consignee and in a subsequent Tracking Detail, UPS Freight made the following representation: “Shipment recorded but cannot be found. Attempting to locate.”

10. Said nondelivery and loss was the result of UPS Freight’s (a) reckless failure to properly and safely carry and care for the shipment during all periods of its custody; and (b) material deviations from, and fundamental breaches of, the governing carriage contract.

11. The nondelivery and loss of the shipment was not caused by circumstances which would give rise to a defense or exception to liability under the Carmack Amendment or federal or state common law.

12. By reason of the aforesaid, plaintiff, and those on whose behalf it sues, has sustained damages in the amount of $64,600.00, no part of which has been paid although duly demanded.

13. 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.

14. Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent required of it under the premises.


15. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 14 of this complaint.

16. On or about March 31, 2011 the shipment was delivered in good order and condition and full and complete as to quantity, into the custody and control of defendant UPS Freight for purposes of interstate carriage to the agreed destination.

17. UPS Freight failed to deliver the shipment at the agreed destination and no delivery of any kind has been tendered to the proper consignee.

18. As a result of the aforesaid, UPS Freight is liable to plaintiff as common carrier, forwarder, warehouseman, and/or bailee for hire.


19. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 14 of this complaint.

20. UPS Freight converted the shipment to its own use."

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.