INTERESTED V. SEAFREIGHT

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 06-3127

Case Date: 11/28/2007

Preview:Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007
Opinion filed November 28, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D06-3127
Lower Tribunal No. 03-29576

________________

Interested Underwriters,
Appellant, vs.

SeaFreight Line, Ltd., et al.,
Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Espinosa Dennis, Judge. James J. McNally, for appellant. Thomas V. Halley; Cichanowicz Callan Keane Vengrow & Textor and Joseph DeMay, Jr., for appellees.

Before GREEN, ROTHENBERG, and SALTER, JJ. SALTER, J. Interested Underwriters appeals a final judgment summary judgment in favor of SeaFreight Line, Ltd. and SeaFreight Agencies, Inc. (together,

"SeaFreight") in a case involving the application of the statutory loss limitation in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA"). 1 The trial court granted summary judgment based on the case of Groupe Chegaray v. De Chalus v. P&O Containers, 251 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2001), finding that a container filled with eight pallets (each containing 140 cartons of perfume) and 55 loose cartons of perfume constituted 63 "packages" for purposes of COGSA's $500-per-package limitation. We reverse, finding ample evidence in the record below that each carton of perfume was a "package" and thus that there were a total of 1,175 packages, 2 and that the Groupe Chegaray decision turned on an express agreement between shipper and carrier that a pallet would be considered a "package" for COGSA purposes. In this case, there was no such agreement. We review a summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party--here, the appellant, Interested Underwriters. If the "slightest doubt" exists, we must reverse. Sierra v. Shevin, 767 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The Bills of Lading and the Insured Loss

46 U.S.C. app.

Download INTERESTED V. SEAFREIGHT.pdf