Formosa Plastics Corporation v. Sturge

848 F.2d 390
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJune 13, 1988
Docket1148
StatusPublished

This text of 848 F.2d 390 (Formosa Plastics Corporation 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 Corporation v. Sturge, 848 F.2d 390 (2d Cir. 1988).

Opinion

848 F.2d 390

1988 A.M.C. 2999

FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION (U.S.A.) and Formosa Plastics
Corporation (Taiwan), Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants,
v.
Arthur Collwyn STURGE, Individually and as the
Representative of all Members of those Syndicates
Subscribing to Lloyd's Policy No. 79JC10328 and all
Insurance Companies, Members of the Institute of London
Underwriters, Severally Subscribing to Policy No. 79JC10328,
Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

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

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued May 20, 1988.
Decided June 13, 1988.

Symmers, Fish & Warner, New York City, for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.

Chester D. Hooper, New York City (Anthony J. Gaspich, Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees, cross-appellants.

Before MESKILL and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and STEWART, District Judge.*

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.

*

Honorable Charles E. Stewart, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation

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

Related

Formosa Plastics Corp. (U.S.A.) v. Sturge
684 F. Supp. 359 (S.D. New York, 1987)
Formosa Plastics Corp. v. Sturge
848 F.2d 390 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
848 F.2d 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/formosa-plastics-corporation-v-sturge-ca2-1988.