Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
US MARITIME LAW
Robert Force* and Martin Davies**
CASES
272. American Home Assurance v AP Moller-Maersk 1
Multi-modal transport—through bill of lading—Carmack Amendment not applicable—goods damaged by train derailment—carriage commenced in the US
Maersk, an ocean carrier, issued a through bill of lading to Crown to carry machinery and parts from inland United States to Australia. The arrangement was made through Crown’s freight forwarder, which was originally named as a defendant but was subsequently dismissed from the case. The contract between the freight forwarder and Maersk provided that Maersk’s standard form bill of lading would apply. Maersk arranged for the inland leg of the transport to be performed by BNSF, a rail carrier. While the goods were being transported within the US by BNSF, the train derailed and the goods were damaged. Crown’s subrogated insurer brought suit against Maersk, which impleaded BNSF. Maersk and BNSF argued that their liability was limited to $500 per package pursuant to the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”). The subrogated insurer contended that it was liable for the entire loss pursuant to the Carmack Amendment, the liability regime for damage resulting during rail transport.2
The district court to which the case was originally assigned rejected the contention that COGSA applied. Instead, the court held that the Carmack Amendment applied. That judge retired after issuing her ruling. Thereafter the case was reassigned. When the successor judge was asked to re-examine the prior ruling, the court found that it was bound by the determination that the Carmack Amendment applied and this precluded the assertion of any maritime claim. It considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v Regal-Beloit
Corp
3 to stand for the proposition that in international shipments under a through bill of lading only a single liability regime applies. The case was then transferred to a third district judge.
Decision: Maersk is not liable under the Carmack Amendment and it is not subject to Carmack liability by contract.
* Niels F Johnsen Professor of Maritime Law and Director Emeritus, Maritime Law Center, Tulane University Law School, New Orleans.
** Admiralty Law Institute Professor of Maritime Law and Director, Maritime Law Center, Tulane University Law School, New Orleans.
1. (2014) 13 F Supp 3d 277 (SDNY); aff’d (2015) — Fed Appx — (2d Cir).
2. 49 USC § 14706.
3. (2010) 561 US 89; 130 S Ct 2433; digested at [2011] IMCLY § 260.
196