Jurgens Maschinenbau v. Blue Anchor Line, e ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
July 2, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-31133
SCAPA FORMING FABRICS; WURTTEMBERGISCHE UND BADISCHE
VERSICHERUNGS-AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
BLUE ANCHOR LINE
Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING CO, S.A.
Third Party Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
No. 2:02-CV-2213
Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This appeal concerns who bears responsibility for damage
that resulted to components of a weaving loom machine while it
was being shipped from Germany to the United States. Jurgens
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
-1-
Maschinenbau GmbH & Co. (“Jurgens”), the seller of the weaving
loom machine, hired a freight forwarder, Kuehne & Nagle, to
arrange for transportation of the machinery from its facility in
Emsdetten, Germany, to its customer, Scapa Forming Fabrics
(“Scapa”), in Shreveport, Louisiana. Kuehne & Nagel booked the
cargo for carriage through Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-
Appellant Blue Anchor Line (“Blue Anchor”), a non-vessel
operating common carrier. Blue Anchor in turn contracted with
Third Party Defendant-Appellee Mediterranean Shipping Company
(“MSC”) to carry the machinery aboard one of MSC’s motor vessels,
the MSC Giovanna, from Germany to the United States. The terms
and conditions of the shipment were encompassed in two bills of
lading, one belonging to Blue Anchor and one belonging to MSC.
In order to ship the weaving loom machine, the components of
the machine were placed in five open-top containers. Each
container was assigned a stowage location on the MSC Giovanna.
One of these containers, open-top container No. CCSU-340101-0,
was stowed on deck. During the voyage, the vessel encountered
rough weather and the machinery parts in this particular
container were damaged as a result of contact with saltwater.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Scapa and Wurttembergische und Badische
Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft, Jurgens’s cargo insurer,
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit against Blue
Anchor for damages to the machinery under the Carriage of Goods
by Sea Act (“COGSA”), 46 U.S.C. §§ 1300-1315, and the applicable
-2-
bills of lading. Blue Anchor filed a third-party complaint
against MSC for indemnification.
Following a bench trial on liability, the district court
rendered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and MSC. The district
court determined that Blue Anchor’s bill of lading was a clean
bill of lading for open-top containers because it was silent as
to the stowage location for open-top containers. According to
the district court, a clean bill of lading implies below-deck
stowage and constitutes an agreement between the shipper and the
carrier that the cargo will be stowed below deck. Because Blue
Anchor permitted container No. CCSU-340101-0 to be stowed on deck
when its bill of lading required below-deck stowage, the district
court concluded that Blue Anchor unreasonably deviated from its
contract of carriage.
The district court then examined whether Blue Anchor was
entitled to limit its liability to $500 per package under COGSA,
46 U.S.C. § 1304, or $7000 for the fourteen packages in container
No. CCSU-340101-0. Although a carrier generally forfeits the
$500 per package limit defense under COGSA when it stows cargo on
deck under a clean bill of lading, the district court noted two
exceptions to this general rule: (1) when the custom of the port
permits on-deck stowage; or (2) when the vessel contains design
or construction features that eliminate or substantially reduce
the risk of on-deck stowage. Finding neither exception
applicable, the district court concluded that Blue Anchor
-3-
forfeited the $500 per package limit defense under COGSA.
Finally, the district court determined that MSC was not
required to indemnify Blue Anchor for the damage caused to the
machinery components in container No. CCSU-340101-0 over and
above the $500 per package liability limitation to which MSC was
entitled under COGSA. The district court reasoned that Blue
Anchor knew Jurgens’s cargo was water-sensitive but failed to
impart that critical information to MSC. In addition, the
district court found that MSC’s bill of lading expressly
conferred upon MSC the right to stow any type of container,
including open-top containers, on deck without notice to the
shipper.
In a subsequent order, the district court considered whether
Plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest and whether Blue
Anchor was entitled to a credit for the settlement money received
by Plaintiffs from MSC in a separate action. Finding no evidence
of peculiar circumstances, the district court awarded prejudgment
interest to Plaintiffs. Regarding the settlement between
Plaintiffs and MSC, the district court concluded that Blue Anchor
was not entitled to a setoff but rather a credit of $7000, which
represented the $500 per package liability limitation to which
MSC was entitled under COGSA. The district court entered a final
judgment against Blue Anchor on July 29, 2005.
Blue Anchor timely appealed the district court’s judgment,
challenging the district court’s conclusion that it deviated from
-4-
its bill of lading by stowing the weaving machinery on deck.
Blue Anchor argues that even if its bill of lading required
below-deck stowage, its contractual deviation was still
reasonable, entitling it to limit its liability to $500 per
package under COGSA, 46 U.S.C. § 1304. Blue Anchor also contends
that the district court erred in concluding that it was not
entitled to full indemnification from MSC because, according to
Blue Anchor, MSC was negligent in stowing the container on deck.
Finally, Blue Anchor challenges the district court’s award of
prejudgment interest and the district court’s refusal to offset
the damages by the amount of the settlement between Plaintiffs
and MSC.
We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. “In admiralty cases tried by the district court without
a jury, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo
and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.”
Steel Coils, Inc. v. M/V Lake Marion, 331 F.3d 422, 426 (5th Cir.
2003). “If the district court’s findings are plausible, we may
not reverse even if we would have weighed the evidence
differently.” Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. M/V Incotrans Spirit, 998
F.2d 316, 319-20 (5th Cir. 1993).
Having reviewed the briefs, the district court’s oral
reasons for judgment, and the pertinent portions of the record,
we find no error of law or fact warranting reversal. Essentially
-5-
for the reasons stated by the district court, we agree that Blue
Anchor failed to properly stow the container below deck in
accordance with its bill of lading, which was clean as to open-
top containers. See Searoad Shipping Co. v. E.I. duPont de
Nemours & Co., 361 F.2d 833, 835 (5th Cir. 1966) (stating that
even if the parties have no express agreement regarding below-
deck carriage, “a clean bill of lading imports under deck
stowage”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In so
doing, Blue Anchor committed an unreasonable deviation, thereby
eliminating the $500 per package limit defense under COGSA. See
46 U.S.C. § 1304(4)-(5); Constructores Tecnicos S. de R.L. v.
Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 945 F.2d 841, 845 (5th Cir. 1991). Because
Blue Anchor committed an unreasonable deviation from its contract
of carriage, we affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs.
We also affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of MSC
on Blue Anchor’s indemnification claim for the same reasons given
by the district court in its oral reasons for judgment. Pursuant
to its bill of lading, MSC had the right to stow “containers of
all types” on deck without notice to Blue Anchor. Accordingly,
the district court did not err in ruling in favor of MSC on this
issue.1
1
To the extent Blue Anchor is basing its theory of
indemnification on the implied warranty of workmanlike
performance, this court has already rejected this theory in cargo
-6-
Lastly, we affirm the district court’s order on damages.
Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that Blue
Anchor is entitled to a credit for the settlement between
Plaintiffs and MSC. There is no evidence in the record that
Plaintiffs will be overcompensated in this case. We also find no
abuse of discretion in the district court’s award of prejudgment
interest. Blue Anchor has not pointed to any evidence in the
record showing that peculiar circumstances exist. See Corpus
Christi Oil & Gas Co. v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 198,
204-05 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the
judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
damage cases. See LCI Shipholdings, Inc. v. Muller Weingarten
AG, 153 F. App’x 929, 932 (5th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).
-7-