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

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. NEW YORK CONTAINER TERMINAL 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: 
1:13-cv-07513 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Oct 24 2013

RELEVANT FACTS

8. On or about October 15, 2012, 4 consignments, consisting of 49 cases of
automotive glass in total, then being in good order and condition, and laden into containers
numbered FCIU3322696, HLXU3044107, FSCU3702490, and CPSU1011888 were delivered to
the defendants and/or their agents at the New York Container Terminal for ocean transport to
Ulsan, South Korea in consideration of an agreed freight, pursuant to HP(A) bills of lading
numbered FB008577, FB008550, FB008588, and FB008568.

9. On October 27, 2012 the New York/New Jersey region was bracing and preparing
for Hurricane Sandy, which was forecasted to make landfall on or about October 29, 2012.

10. On or about October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy made landfall and the subject
cargo sustained severe water damage while in care, custody, and control of the defendants.

11. The defendants and/or their agents failed to take all reasonable measures and
precautions to prevent damage to the subject cargo in light of the impending, forecasted, and
highly publicized storm.

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 and/or their agents.

13. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has sustained damages in a total amount of
no less than $75,000, as nearly as presently can be determined, no amount of which has been
paid, although duly demanded.

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.