## Facts

- A buyer/consignee imported glass doors and windows shipped from Cork, Ireland to Connecticut in two sealed containers.
- A freight forwarder arranged ocean carriage with the ocean carrier, which issued two clean bills of lading for the containers.
- After sea transit to New Jersey and trucking to Connecticut, the consignee unpacked the containers and found the glass goods damaged and unusable.
- The cargo insurer paid the loss (over $300,000) and sued the ocean carrier under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) as subrogee.
- The ocean carrier received the containers sealed and could not inspect the internal condition, packing, or bracing at tender.
- Trial evidence indicated internal stowage, dunnage, and bracing were inadequate, allowing cargo movement and breakage during ordinary carriage.

## Issues

1. Whether the insurer proved a COGSA prima facie case by showing delivery to the carrier in good condition and outturn in damaged condition, by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. Whether, assuming a prima facie case, the carrier proved an excepted cause—insufficiency of packing—and the absence of any concurrent carrier fault contributing to the loss.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for the carrier after a bench trial.
- The court held the insurer failed to prove the cargo was delivered to the carrier in good condition because the containers were sealed and the clean bills of lading, without more, did not establish internal condition at tender.
- The court also held that, even if a prima facie case were assumed, the carrier proved the damage was more likely than not caused by insufficiency of packing and the insurer did not prove any concurrent negligence by the carrier.

## Legal Principles

- Under COGSA, the cargo claimant bears the initial burden to prove delivery to the carrier in good condition and outturn in damaged condition, by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A clean bill of lading does not, by itself, establish good condition at delivery when cargo is tendered in sealed containers that prevent carrier inspection; additional direct or circumstantial evidence of condition at loading is required.
- If a claimant establishes a prima facie case, the carrier may avoid liability by proving the loss resulted from an excepted cause, including insufficiency of packing.
- When an excepted cause is shown, the claimant must prove the carrier’s fault was a concurrent cause to impose liability despite the exception.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the insurer’s COGSA claim because sealed-container delivery made the clean bills of lading insufficient to prove good condition at tender, and the evidence showed the damage resulted from inadequate internal packing with no proven concurrent fault by the carrier.


Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Maersk Line, No. 18 Civ. 121 (PKC), 2021 WL 5234853 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2021)