Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.

186 A.D.2d 50, 587 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10591

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 17, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 50 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 186 A.D.2d 50, 587 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered February 21, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover the value of goods lost in transit, the IAS Court correctly held that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of a contractual relationship between defendant and plaintiff’s assured, Jadow. The international bill of lading under which the goods were shipped was issued by nonparty Bleckmann International Forwarders and, while it directed Jadow to look to defendant for delivery, defendant did not issue a bill of lading of its own. Nor can the contract between Bleckmann and defendant to develop transportation trade serve as a basis for making defendant liable for the loss, the goods having been shipped to Savannah, which was not a "mutually agreed upon” port within the meaning of that contract. Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no evidence in the record to support its argument that defendant received the goods, consequently defendant cannot be held liable for failing to timely report the loss, and, by parity of reasoning, plaintiff’s cause of action for conversion must also fall. In conclusion, while the record shows that defendant undertook to investigate the loss, there is no evidence to support plaintiff’s claim that it employed defendant to pursue its claim. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered February 21, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover the value of goods lost in transit, the IAS Court correctly held that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of a contractual relationship between defendant and plaintiff’s assured, Jadow. The international bill of lading under which the goods were shipped was issued by nonparty Bleckmann International Forwarders and, while it directed Jadow to look to defendant for delivery, defendant did not issue a bill of lading of its own. Nor can the contract between Bleckmann and defendant to develop transportation trade serve as a basis for making defendant liable for the loss, the goods having been shipped to Savannah, which was not a "mutually agreed upon” port within the meaning of that contract. Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no evidence in the record to support its argument that defendant received the goods, consequently defendant cannot be held liable for failing to timely report the loss, and, by parity of reasoning, plaintiff’s cause of action for conversion must also fall. In conclusion, while the record shows that defendant undertook to investigate the loss, there is no evidence to support plaintiff’s claim that it employed defendant to pursue its claim. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 50, 587 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-casualty-surety-co-v-carolina-freight-carriers-corp-nyappdiv-1992.