## Facts

- Edusystems shipped educational equipment from Florida to Paraguay using a freight forwarder, Meadows.
- Meadows booked the shipment with Mar (an NVOCC/contracting carrier), and Mar arranged ocean carriage with Bottacchi aboard the M/V Ocean Lynx (owned by Nabadi).
- Mar issued a bill of lading incorporating COGSA and stating the § 4(5) $500-per-package limitation unless a higher value was declared and additional freight paid; the print was extremely small.
- Bottacchi issued its own bill of lading containing materially identical COGSA-incorporating and limitation language.
- Mar had a filed tariff permitting shippers to declare excess value at higher rates.
- Meadows had received hundreds of Mar bills of lading with substantively identical terms from prior dealings, but did not read the terms.
- During the voyage, rough seas caused the container to go overboard and the cargo was lost.
- INA, as Edusystems’ subrogated insurer, sued Mar, Bottacchi, the vessel in rem, and the vessel owner for nearly $245,000; Mar sought indemnity from Bottacchi.
- The district court applied COGSA’s $500-per-package limitation and entered a limited judgment of $29,500 against Mar, and an indemnity judgment for the same amount in Mar’s favor against Bottacchi.

## Issues

1. Whether COGSA § 4(5)’s $500-per-package limitation was enforceable when the bill of lading terms were printed in extremely small type.
2. Whether the bills of lading and Mar’s filed tariff gave the shipper a fair opportunity to declare a higher value and avoid the limitation.
3. Whether Mar was entitled to indemnity from Bottacchi for Mar’s liability to the cargo interest.
4. What standards govern prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees in this admiralty/COGSA dispute, including in an indemnity posture.

## Decision

- The court affirmed enforcement of COGSA § 4(5)’s $500-per-package limitation as to Mar and Bottacchi.
- The court upheld the district court’s finding that adequate notice existed through the clause paramount and the parties’ commercial course of dealing, despite the small print.
- The court upheld the finding that a fair opportunity existed to declare excess value based on the bills of lading and Mar’s filed tariff, and that the shipper chose not to declare a higher value.
- The court affirmed the $29,500 judgment against Mar and the corresponding indemnity judgment in Mar’s favor against Bottacchi.
- The court reaffirmed the general admiralty presumption favoring prejudgment interest absent “peculiar circumstances,” and reiterated that attorneys’ fees are generally unavailable in COGSA/admiralty absent a recognized basis, with a limited indemnity-related exception.

## Legal Principles

- A carrier invoking COGSA § 4(5)’s $500-per-package limitation must show: (1) adequate notice, commonly satisfied by a clause paramount incorporating COGSA in the bill of lading; and (2) a fair opportunity for the shipper to avoid the limitation by declaring a higher value and paying higher freight.
- A shipper (including through a freight forwarder) may be charged with notice based on standard bill-of-lading language and course of dealing; failure to read the bill of lading does not defeat notice when the limitation term is included.
- A filed tariff allowing declaration of excess value may support the fair-opportunity requirement, and the shipper’s decision to rely on cargo insurance instead of declaring value does not invalidate the limitation.
- In maritime carriage, a contracting carrier may obtain indemnity from the performing carrier for amounts the contracting carrier pays to cargo interests, subject to applicable liability limits.
- In admiralty, prejudgment interest is ordinarily awarded as compensation; denial is limited to unusual equitable circumstances and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Attorneys’ fees are generally not awarded in COGSA/admiralty absent statutory, contractual, or recognized maritime grounds, but may be recoverable as part of indemnity damages for fees incurred defending the underlying claim.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit enforced COGSA’s $500-per-package limitation despite an unusually small-print bill of lading, relying on the presence of COGSA-incorporating terms, course of dealing, and a filed tariff establishing a fair opportunity to declare higher value; it also affirmed indemnity from the performing carrier to the contracting carrier and restated that prejudgment interest is generally favored while attorneys’ fees are generally unavailable except as a component of indemnity.


Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. M/V Ocean Lynx, 901 F.2d 934 (11th Cir. 1990)