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

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. MARTINAIR et al Complaint

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.

Embedded Scribd iPaper - Requires Javascript and Flash Player
Case 1:11-cv-06417-RJS Document 1
Filed 09/14/11 Page 1 of 4
David L. Mazaroli Attorney for Plaintiff 11 Park Place – Suite 1214 New York, NY 10007-2801 Tel. (212)267-8480 Fax. (212)732-7352 e-mail: dlm@mazarolilaw.com ----------------------------------------------------------------x UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------x ECF CASE : INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, : 11 Civ. 6417 (RJS) Plaintiff, : - against COMPLAINT : MARTINAIR; MARTINAIR HOLLAND NV; : MARTIN AIR HOLLAND; MARTINAIR CARGO; ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTS; : ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTS S.A.; LAND AIR EXPRESS INC.; : Defendants. : -----------------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiff, through its undersigned attorney, alleges as follows for its complaint against defendants: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 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, and maintains an office at 140 Broadway, New York, New York, and sues herein as subrogated insurer of Parallel Technology, LLC who was at all material times the consignee, purchaser and owner of the cargo, and the entity entitled to receive the shipment.
Case 1:11-cv-06417-RJS Document 1
Filed 09/14/11 Page 2 of 4
2.
Defendants Martinair, Martinair Holland NV, Martin Air Holland;
Martinair Cargo, Associated Transports and Associated Transports S.A., are believed to be corporations organized under the laws of, and with their principal places of business in, certain foreign sovereigns. 3. Defendant Land Air Express Inc. is believed to be a corporation organized
under the laws of one of the fifty states with a registered agent for service of process in New York. 4. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over defendants, who conduct
business in the State of New York and the United States as a whole. 5. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
USCA § 1331. There is also diversity pendent, ancillary and supplemental jurisdiction as to certain aspects of the claim in suit. 6. This cause of action arises under a treaty of the United States, specifically
the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, 49 Stat. 3000, T.S. No. 876 (1934), reprinted in note following 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1502 (the "Warsaw Convention"), and certain amendments, protocols and successor treaties thereto in effect in the country of origin and destination at the time of shipment. Alternatively, this cause of action is governed by the Convention for Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Done at Montreal on 28 May 1999, reprinted in S. Treaty Doc. No 106-45, 1999 WL 33292734 (2000) (entered into force Nov. 4, 2003) (“Montreal Convention”). 7. This action involves damage to a shipment of electronic equipment which
moved from France to the United States, as described more fully in Martin Air Holland
2
Case 1:11-cv-06417-RJS Document 1
Filed 09/14/11 Page 3 of 4
air waybill 129 5337 7811 dated on or about September 29, 2010, and Associated Transports air waybill ASO10034915 dated on or about September 29, 2010, and others. 8. Defendant Land Air Express Inc. provided truck transportation for the
shipment from the intermediate airport to the destination airport. 9. Said damage was the result of defendants’ fault, recklessness, wanton
neglect, and willful misconduct in that defendants, their agents, servants, connecting carriers, subcontractors, terminal operators, truck drivers, warehousemen and employees failed to properly handle, protect and care for the cargo in question and in that defendants had no proper and effective procedures to receive, handle, carry, transfer and care for the cargo 10. By reason of the aforesaid plaintiff, and those on whose behalf it sues, has
sustained damages in the amount of $47,120.45, no part of which has been paid although duly demanded. 11. 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. 12. Plaintiff, and those on whose behalf it sues, has performed all conditions
precedent required of it under the premises. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 13. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 12 of this complaint. 14. When the cargo was received into the care, custody and control of
defendants, or those entities acting on their behalf, the cargo was in good order and condition.
3
Case 1:11-cv-06417-RJS Document 1
Filed 09/14/11 Page 4 of 4
15.
However, defendants failed to make delivery of the entire cargo at the
intended destination in the same order and condition. Instead the cargo was in damaged and depreciated condition at the time of delivery and was unfit for intended usage. 16. Therefore, defendants, as common carriers, bailees, and/or warehousemen,
are liable to plaintiff for the claimed damage and loss to the cargo in suit. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly and severally: (a) (b) (c) (d) for the sum of $47,120.45; for prejudgment interest at the rate of 9% per annum; for the costs and disbursements of this action; for such other and further relief as this Court deems proper and just.
Date: New York, New York August 30, 2011 LAW OFFICES, DAVID L. MAZAROLI
s/David L. Mazaroli
_____________________________ David L. Mazaroli Attorney for Plaintiff 11 Park Place - Suite 1214 New York, New York 10007 Tel.: (212)267-8480 Fax.: (212)732-7352 E-mail: dlm@mazarolilaw.com File No.: 1G-2060
4

Published under a Creative Commons License By attribution, non-commercial
AttachmentSize
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Martinair et al Complaint.pdf14.9 KB

Like us on facebook!