Category Archives: Cargo – Transportation

Fine Art Losses – “Canvas” the Subrogation Landscape

This entry was posted by on .

If a fire or flood destroys a high-net-worth client’s fine art collection, an insurer who pays out a claim related to the loss has an incentive to pursue subrogation. This article explores some of the issues an insurer should “canvas” before pursuing subrogation for these types of claims.

Damage to fine art can occur in a number of ways. For instance, fine art may be damaged in a natural disaster – such as a flood or a wildfire. Artwork may also be accidentally damaged because of a transportation-related incident physically damaging the art. In addition, artwork may suffer fire or smoke damage from a fire within a building. Another possibility is that the artwork suffers damage because of renovations either to the insured’s home or a neighboring property. For example, a renovation contractor may damage artwork due to vibrations or leaking water. A construction worker, moreover, may turn with a tool in his hand, or trip and fall, damaging the artwork.

Continue reading

This entry was posted in Anti-Subrogation Rule, Cargo - Transportation, Damages, Damages – Personal Property, Subrogation and tagged .

Pump the Brakes: Indiana Rules MCS-90 Endorsement Does Not Apply to Intrastate Trips

This entry was posted by on .

In Progressive Southeastern Ins. Co. v. B&T Bulk, LLC, No. 21S-CT-496, 2022 Ind. LEXIS 131, the Supreme Court of Indiana (Supreme Court) reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Court of Appeals), ruling that Form MCS-90 (MSC-90) endorsements on insurance policies do not apply to purely intrastate trips. In reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals, the court found that the Indiana Legislature’s incorporation of the federal Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (MCA) into the state code did not expand the MCA’s scope to include intrastate trips. Continue reading

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

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 , , , , .

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 , .

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 , , , .