Category Archives: Cargo – Transportation

The Deal Stands: Finding of Good Faith Settlement in California Precludes Contribution and Indemnity


This entry was posted by on .

Courts across the country have historically taken positions encouraging settlements between civil litigants. Thus, as long as there is good faith involved in the negotiation process, settlements and their effects on other parties are generally upheld. Recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (District Court) considered whether a settlement between the plaintiff and one of several defendants met the good faith standard, thereby barring claims for contribution and indemnity from the co-defendants. Continue reading

This entry was posted in California, Cargo - Transportation, Contribution-Apportionment, Indemnification and tagged , , , , .

Keep on Truckin’: Indiana Applies MCS-90 Endorsement to Intrastate Trips


This entry was posted by on .

The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently ruled that, in Indiana, Form MCS-90 endorsements on insurance policies apply to purely intrastate trips, including when the vehicle is on the way to pick up cargo but has not yet done so at the time of an incident. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Cargo - Transportation, Indiana and tagged , , .
Cargo

Carmack Amendment Loss Claims Should Indicate a Specified or Determinable Amount of Money


This entry was posted by on .

In N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 719 Fed. Appx. 691 (9th Cir. 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Appeals Court) addressed the question of whether an insurer, N.Y. Marine & General Insurance Company (N.Y. Marine), could recover from a cargo carrier under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, if the insured’s loss claim did not state a specified amount of money. Finding that § 14706 requires that a party filing a cargo loss claim state a specified or determinable amount of money, the Appeals Court affirmed the district court’s holding that neither the carrier, Estes Express Lines, Inc. (Estes) nor the broker, Exfreight Zeta, Inc. (Zeta), was liable to N.Y. Marine. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Cargo - Transportation, Subrogation and tagged , .
Transportation

New York Federal Court Holds That the Montreal Convention Does Not Allow a Party to Recover Inspection Costs Where Cargo Suffers No Physical Damage


This entry was posted by on .

In Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Agility Logistics Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104179 (S.D.N.Y.), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York considered the “novel question” of whether the Montreal Convention allows recovery of inspection costs when there is no physical damage to the cargo at issue. Although acknowledging that its holding was, arguably, absurd, the court held that, based on the plain language of Article 18 of the Montreal Convention, the subrogating insurer could not recover the inspection costs its insured incurred. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Cargo - Transportation, Subrogation and tagged , , , .