Formosa Plastics Corp. v. Sturge

Second Circuit

Formosa Plastics Corp. v. Sturge

848 F.2d 390, 1988 A.M.C. 2999, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8039

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 13, 1988

DocketNos. 1010, 1148, Dockets 88-7063, 88-7093

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 848 F.2d 390 (Formosa Plastics Corp. v. Sturge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Formosa Plastics Corp. v. Sturge, 848 F.2d 390, 1988 A.M.C. 2999, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8039 (2d Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Bernard Newman, J., of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation, awarding damages of $581,595.56 to plaintiffs-appellees Formosa Plastics Corp. (U.S.A.) and Formosa Plastics Corp. (Taiwan) in an action for breach of a marine insurance policy.

Defendant-appellant Arthur Collwyn Sturge (Sturge) contends that the district court’s findings of fact concerning the damage to the shipments of ethylene dichloride during ocean carriage are clearly erroneous; we disagree. As to Sturge’s claim concerning the “Bailee Clause” of the marine insurance policy, we conclude that this claim is also without merit, substantially for the reasons set out in Judge Newman’s opinion below, 684 F.Supp. 359 (S.D. N.Y.1987).

We therefore affirm.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Bernard Newman, J., of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation, awarding damages of $581,595.56 to plaintiffs-appellees Formosa Plastics Corp. (U.S.A.) and Formosa Plastics Corp. (Taiwan) in an action for breach of a marine insurance policy.

Defendant-appellant Arthur Collwyn Sturge (Sturge) contends that the district court’s findings of fact concerning the damage to the shipments of ethylene dichloride during ocean carriage are clearly erroneous; we disagree. As to Sturge’s claim concerning the “Bailee Clause” of the marine insurance policy, we conclude that this claim is also without merit, substantially for the reasons set out in Judge Newman’s opinion below, 684 F.Supp. 359 (S.D. N.Y.1987).

We therefore affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

848 F.2d 390, 1988 A.M.C. 2999, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/formosa-plastics-corp-v-sturge-ca2-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack