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

TA TRIUMPH-ADLER GMBH et al v. EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON, INC. 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: 
2:14-cv-00975 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
TA Triumph-Adler GMBH
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Western District of Washington
Date Filed: 
Jul 1 2014

COME NOW the Plaintiffs as set forth more fully below and for complaint against the
defendants, allege as follows:

PARTIES
1. Plaintiff TA TRIUMPH-ADLER (hereinafter "Triumph-Adler") is a German
company with it principal place of business located in Norderstedt, Germany, and was the owner
of 784 cartons of copiers, the cargo.
2. Plaintiff ERGO VERSICHERUNG AG (hereinafter "Ergo") is a German
insurance company, which is formed under the laws of Germany, located in Dusseldorf,
Germany, and was the insurer of said cargo described in ]f 1.
3. Plaintiff FNTERMEC INTERNATIONAL BV (hereinafter "Intermec") is a Dutch
company with its principal place of business located in Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and was the
owner of 160 cartons of assorted electrical parts, the cargo.
4. Plaintiff BEST BUY CO., INC. (hereinafter "Best Buy") is a Minnesota company
with its principal place of business located in Richfield, Minnesota, and was the owner of 416
cartons of micro-USB car chargers, the cargo.
5. Plaintiff NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
PITTSBURGH, PA (hereinafter "National Union") is a New York insurance company which is
formed under the laws of Pennsylvania, and has its principal place of business in New York City,
New York, and was the insurer of said cargo described in ]f 3 and 4.
6. Plaintiff HONGFUJFN PRECISION ELECTRONICS (CHONGQING) CO.,
LTD. (hereinafter "HPE") is a Chinese company with its principal place of business located in
Beijing, China, and was the owner of 140 LCD Monitor parts, the cargo.
7. Plaintiff AIG TAIWAN INSURANCE CO. LTD; FUBON INSURANCE CO.,
LTD; TAIWAN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO. LTD; CATHAY CENTURY
INSURANCE CO. LTD; UNION INSURANCE CO. LTD; and INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA, TAIWAN BRANCH (hereinafter, collectively, "AIG") are Taiwanese
insurance companies, formed under the laws of Taiwan, located in Taipei, Taiwan, and the
insurers of said cargo described in ]f 6.
8. Plaintiff PICC PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY LIMITED
(hereinafter "PCC") is a Chinese insurance company, which is formed under the laws of China,
located in Beijing, and were also the insurers of said cargo described in ]f 6.
9. Plaintiff GIBSON BRANDS, INC, f/k/a GIBSON GUITAR CORP. (hereinafter
"Gibson") is a Tennessee company with its principal place of business located in Nashville,
Tennessee, and was the owner of 100 turntable USB sets with carts, the cargo.
10. Plaintiff ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC (hereinafter "Royal &
Sun") is an English insurance company which is formed under the laws of the United Kingdom,
and has its principal place of business in London, England, was the insurer of said cargo
described in ]f 9.
11. Plaintiff CORSAIR COMPONENTS, PNC. (hereinafter "Corsair") is a Delaware
company with it principal place of business located in Fremont, California, and was the owner of
2,374 cartons of various computer accessories, the cargo.
12. Plaintiff FALVEY CARGO UNDERWRITrNG (hereinafter "Falvey") is a Rhode
Island insurance company, which is formed under the laws of Rhode Island, located in North
Kingstown, Rhode Island, and was the insurer of said cargo described in ]f 11.
13. Plaintiff PNDIGO VISION LTD. (hereinafter "Indigo") is a United Kingdom
company with its principal place of business in Edinburgh, Scotland, and was the owner of 402
cartons of assorted electrical parts, the cargo.
14. Plaintiff AVIVA rNSURANCE UK LFMITED (hereinafter "Aviva") is an
English insurance company which is formed under the laws of the United Kingdom, and has its
principal place of business in Norfolk, England, and was the insurer of said electrical parts cargo
described in ]f 13.
15. Plaintiff THE MAD GROUP (HQ) LTD (hereinafter "Mad Group") is a United
Kingdom company with its principal place of business in Worcestershire, England, and was the
owner of 486 cartons of assorted yoga/pilates equipment, the cargo.
16. Plaintiff ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC (hereinafter "Royal &
Sun") is an English insurance company which is formed under the laws of the United Kingdom,
and has its principal place of business in London, England, and was the insurer of said cargo
described in ]f 15.
17. Plaintiff THULE SWEDEN AB (hereinafter "Thule") is a Swedish company with
its principal place of business located in Hillerstorp, Sweden, and was the owner of 1,700 cartons
of "Daypacks," the cargo.
18. Plaintiff XL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (hereinafter "XL") is a Swedish
insurance company, which is formed under the laws of Sweden, and has its principal place of
business in Stockholm, Sweden, and was the insurer of said cargo described in ]f 17.
19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on the basis of that information and belief
allege that EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON, INC., and EXPEDITORS
INTERNATIONAL OCEAN, INC. (hereinafter "Expeditors") are Washington companies whose
principal place of business is located in Seattle, Washington, and now and at all times herein
material were engaged in business as a common carrier for hire within the United States and
within this judicial district.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20. This is a cause of action for damage to ocean cargo arising under a maritime
contract for transportation of goods in international waters, and is an admiralty and maritime
claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as hereinafter more
fully appears. This Court has jurisdiction upon the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1333.
21. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), as the defendants
reside in this judicial district.

FACTS
22. Plaintiffs Triumph-Adler and Ergo are informed and believe that on or about May
26, 2013, at Kobe, Japan, defendant Expeditors received a shipment of various types of cargo
owned by plaintiff Triumph-Adler, for carriage under bill of lading number 6940086679, and
others, issued by and/or on behalf of said defendant. Expeditors agreed, under contracts of
carriage and in return for good and valuable consideration, to carry said cargo from Kobe, Japan,
to Hamburg, Germany, and there deliver said cargo to the lawful holder of the aforementioned
bill of lading, and others, in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received.
23. Thereafter, in breach of and in violation of said agreements, Expeditors did not
deliver said cargo in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received at Japan. To
the contrary, Expeditors failed to deliver the cargo. The value of the non-delivered cargo was
$415,469.16.
24. Prior to the shipment of the cargo described herein and prior to any loss thereto,
plaintiff Ergo issued its policy of insurance whereby plaintiff Ergo agreed to indemnify
Triumph-Adler, and its assigns, against loss of or damage to said cargo while in transit, including
mitigation expenses, and plaintiff Ergo has therefore become obligated to pay, and has paid to
the person entitled to payment under said policy the sum of $415,469.16, on account of the
herein described loss.
25. Plaintiff Ergo has therefore been damaged in the sum of $415,469.16, or another
amount according to proof at trial, no part of which has been paid, despite demand therefor.
26. Plaintiffs Intermec and National Union are informed and believe that on or about
June 4, 2013, at Dongguan, China, defendant Expeditors received a shipment of various types of
cargo owned by plaintiff Intermec, for carriage under bills of lading number 614625540 and
614625554, and others, issued by and/or on behalf of said defendant. Expeditors agreed, under
contracts of carriage and in return for good and valuable consideration, to carry said cargo from
Dongguan, China, to Rotterdam, Netherlands, and there deliver said cargo to the lawful holder of
the aforementioned bills of lading, and others, in the same good order, condition, and quantity as
when received.
27. Thereafter, in breach of and in violation of said agreements, Expeditors did not
deliver said cargo in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received at China. To
the contrary, Expeditors failed to deliver the cargo. The value of the non-delivered cargo was
$33,872.40.
28. Prior to the shipment of the herein described cargo and prior to any loss thereto,
plaintiff National Union issued its policy of insurance whereby plaintiff National Union agreed
to indemnify Intermec, and its assigns, against loss of or damage to said cargo while in transit,
including mitigation expenses, and plaintiff National Union has therefore become obligated to
pay, and has paid to the person entitled to payment under said policy the sum of $33,872.40, on
account of the herein described loss.
29. Plaintiff National Union has therefore been damaged in the sum of $33,872.40, or
another amount according to proof at trial, no part of which has been paid, despite demand
therefor.
30. Plaintiffs Best Buy and National Union are informed and believe that on or about
June 4, 2013, at Dongguan, China, defendant Expeditors received a shipment of various types of
cargo owned by plaintiff Best Buy, for carriage under bill of lading number 6911064478, and
others, issued by and/or on behalf of said defendant. Expeditors agreed, under contracts of
carriage and in return for good and valuable consideration, to carry said cargo from China, to
Gothenburg, Sweden, and there deliver said cargo to the lawful holder of the aforementioned
bills of lading, and others, in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received.
31. Thereafter, in breach of and in violation of said agreements, Expeditors did not
deliver said cargo in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received. To the
contrary, Expeditors failed to deliver the cargo. The value of the non-delivered cargo was
$26,357.76.
32. Prior to the shipment of the herein described cargo and prior to any loss thereto,
plaintiff National Union issued its policy of insurance whereby plaintiff National Union agreed
to indemnify Best Buy of said cargo, against loss of or damage to said cargo while in transit,
including mitigation expenses, and plaintiff National Union has therefore become obligated to
pay, and has paid to the person entitled to payment under said policy the sum of $26,357.76, on
account of the herein described loss.
33. Plaintiff National Union has therefore been damaged in the sum of $26,357.76, or
another amount according to proof at trial, no part of which has been paid, despite demand
therefor.
34. Plaintiffs HPE, AIG, and PICC are informed and believe that on or about June 4,
2013, at Dongguan, China, defendant Expeditors received a shipment of various types of cargo
owned by plaintiff HPE, for carriage under bill of lading number 614625551, and others, issued
by and/or on behalf of said defendant. Expeditors agreed, under contracts of carriage and in
return for good and valuable consideration, to carry said cargo from Dongguan, China, to
Warsaw, Poland, via Hong Kong and Hamburg, Germany, and there deliver said cargo to the
lawful holder of the aforementioned bill of lading, and others, in the same good order, condition,
and quantity as when received.
35. Thereafter, in breach of and in violation of said agreements, Expeditors did not
deliver said cargo in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received in China. To
the contrary, Expeditors failed to deliver the cargo. The value of the non-delivered cargo was
$2,497.30.
36. Prior to the shipment of the herein described cargo and prior to any loss thereto,
plaintiffs AIG and PICC issued their policy of insurance whereby plaintiffs AIG and PICC
agreed to indemnify HPE, and its assigns, against loss of or damage to said cargo while in transit,
including mitigation expenses, and plaintiffs AIG and PICC have therefore become obligated to
pay, and have paid to the person entitled to payment under said policy the sum of $2,497.30, on
account of the herein described loss.
37. Plaintiffs AIG and PICC have therefore been damaged in the sum of $2,497.30, or
another amount according to proof at trial, no part of which has been paid, despite demand
therefor.
38. Plaintiffs Gibson and Royal & Sun are informed and believe that on or about June
4, 2013, at Hong Kong, defendant Expeditors received a shipment of various types of cargo
owned by plaintiff Gibson, for carriage under bill of lading number 6911063303, and others,
issued by and/or on behalf of said defendant. Expeditors agreed, under contracts of carriage and
in return for good and valuable consideration, to carry said cargo from Hong Kong, to
Rotterdam, Netherlands, and there deliver said cargo to the lawful holder of the aforementioned
bill of lading, and others, in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received.
39. Thereafter, in breach of and in violation of said agreements, Expeditors did not
deliver said cargo in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received at Hong
Kong. To the contrary, Expeditors failed to deliver the cargo. The value of the non-delivered
cargo was $8,813.00.
40. Prior to the shipment of the herein described cargo and prior to any loss thereto,
plaintiff Royal & Sun issued its policy of insurance whereby plaintiff Royal & Sun agreed to
indemnify Gibson, and its assigns, against loss of or damage to said cargo while in transit,
including mitigation expenses, and plaintiff Royal & Sun has therefore become obligated to pay,
and has paid to the person entitled to payment under said policy the sum of $8,813.00, on
account of the herein described loss.
41. Plaintiff Royal & Sun has therefore been damaged in the sum of $8,813.00, or
another amount according to proof at trial, no part of which has been paid, despite demand
therefor.
42. Plaintiffs Corsair and Falvey are informed and believe that on or about June 4,
2013, at Hong Kong, defendant Expeditors received a shipment of various types of cargo owned
by plaintiff Corsair, for carriage under bills of lading numbers 6911064265 and 6911064266, and
others, issued by and/or on behalf of said defendant. Expeditors agreed, under contracts of
carriage and in return for good and valuable consideration, to carry said cargo from Hong Kong,
to Rotterdam, Netherlands, and there deliver said cargo to the lawful holder of the
aforementioned bills of lading, and others, in the same good order, condition, and quantity as
when received.
43. Thereafter, in breach of and in violation of said agreements, Expeditors did not
deliver said cargo in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received at Hong
Kong. To the contrary, Expeditors failed to deliver the cargo. The value of the non-delivered
cargo was $249,466.75.
44. Prior to the shipment of the herein described cargo and prior to any loss thereto,
plaintiff Falvey issued its policy of insurance whereby plaintiff Falvey agreed to indemnify
Corsair, and its assigns, against loss of or damage to said cargo while in transit, including
mitigation expenses, and plaintiff Falvey has therefore become obligated to pay, and has paid to
the person entitled to payment under said policy the sum of $224,446.75, excluding plaintiff
Corsair's $25,000.00 deductible, on account of the herein described loss.
45. Plaintiffs Corsair and Falvey have therefore been damaged in the sum of
$249,466.75, or another amount according to proof at trial, no part of which has been paid,
despite demand therefor.
46. Plaintiffs Indigo and Aviva are informed and believe that on or about June 6,
2013, at Pasir Gudang, Malaysia, defendant Expeditors received a shipment of various types of
cargo owned by plaintiff Aviva, for carriage under bill of lading number 612620204, and others,
issued by and/or on behalf of said defendant. Expeditors agreed, under contracts of carriage and
in return for good and valuable consideration, to carry said cargo from Pasir Gudang, Malaysia,
to Grangemouth, United Kingdom, and there deliver said cargo to the lawful holder of the
aforementioned bill of lading, and others, in the same good order, condition, and quantity as
when received.
47. Thereafter, in breach of and in violation of said agreements, Expeditors did not
deliver said cargo in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received at Malaysia.
To the contrary, Expeditors failed to deliver the cargo. The value of the non-delivered cargo was
$63,063.00.
48. Prior to the shipment of the herein described cargo and prior to any loss thereto,
plaintiff Aviva issued its policy of insurance whereby plaintiff Aviva agreed to indemnify
Indigo, and its assigns, against loss of or damage to said cargo while in transit, including
mitigation expenses, and plaintiff Aviva has therefore become obligated to pay, and has paid to
the person entitled to payment under said policy the sum of $63,063.00, on account of the herein
described loss.
49. Plaintiff Aviva has therefore been damaged in the sum of $63,063.00, or another
amount according to proof at trial, no part of which has been paid, despite demand therefor.
50. Plaintiffs Mad Group and Royal & Sun are informed and believe that on or about
June 8, 2013, at Ho Chi Mihn City, Vietnam, defendant Expeditors received a shipment of
various types of cargo owned by plaintiff Mad Group, for carriage under bill of lading number
614552273, and others, issued by and/or on behalf of said defendant. Expeditors agreed, under
contracts of carriage and in return for good and valuable consideration, to carry said cargo from
Ho Chi Mihn City, Viet Nam, to Southampton, England, and there deliver said cargo to the
lawful holder of the aforementioned bill of lading, and others, in the same good order, condition,
and quantity as when received.
51. Thereafter, in breach of and in violation of said agreements, Expeditors did not
deliver said cargo in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received at Viet Nam.
To the contrary, Expeditors failed to deliver the cargo. The value of the non-delivered cargo was
$19,058.97.
52. Prior to the shipment of the herein described cargo and prior to any loss thereto,
plaintiff Royal & Sun issued its policy of insurance whereby plaintiff Royal & Sun agreed to
indemnify Mad Group, and its assigns, against loss of or damage to said cargo while in transit,
including mitigation expenses, and plaintiff Royal & Sun has therefore become obligated to pay,
and has paid to the person entitled to payment under said policy the sum of $19,058.97, on
account of the herein described loss.
53. Plaintiff Royal & Sun has therefore been damaged in the sum of $19,058.97, or
another amount according to proof at trial, no part of which has been paid, despite demand
therefor.
54. Plaintiffs Thule and XL are informed and believe that on or about June 8, 2013, at
Ho Chi Mihn City, Vietnam, defendant Expeditors received a shipment of various types of cargo
owned by plaintiff Thule, for carriage under bill of lading number 617885751, and others, issued
by and/or on behalf of said defendant. Expeditors agreed, under contracts of carriage and in
return for good and valuable consideration, to carry said cargo from Ho Chi Mihn City, Viet
Nam, to Rotterdam, Netherlands, via Vung Tau, Viet Nam, and there deliver said cargo to the
lawful holder of the aforementioned bill of lading, and others, in the same good order, condition,
and quantity as when received.
55. Thereafter, in breach of and in violation of said agreements, Expeditors did not
deliver said cargo in the same good order, condition, and quantity as when received at Viet Nam.
To the contrary, Expeditors failed to deliver the cargo. The value of the non-delivered cargo was
$73,032.00.
56. Prior to the shipment of the herein described cargo and prior to any loss thereto,
plaintiff XL issued its policy of insurance whereby plaintiff XL agreed to indemnify Thule, and
its assigns, against loss of or damage to said cargo while in transit, including mitigation
expenses, and plaintiff XL has therefore become obligated to pay, and has paid to the person
entitled to payment under said policy the sum of $73,032.00, on account of the herein described
loss.
57. Plaintiff XL has therefore been damaged in the sum of $73,032.00, or another
amount according to proof at trial, no part of which has been paid, despite demand therefor.
58. Plaintiffs, together and collectively, and in the amounts set forth in detail above,
have therefore been damaged in the total sum of $891,630.34, or another amount according to
proof at trial, no part of which has been paid, despite demand therefor.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
1. That judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants in the sum
of $891,630.34;
2. That plaintiffs be awarded prejudgment interest thereon and costs of suit herein;
and
3. For any and all other relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
Dated this 1st day of July, 2014.

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.