## Facts

- A consignee sought damages for loss/damage to more than 500 rolls of newsprint carried by an ocean carrier aboard the S.S. Guarico.
- The vessel arrived at a Venezuelan port on April 30, 1981, and the cargo was discharged to the government port authority responsible for cargo operations.
- The consignee learned of the cargo’s arrival on May 4, 1981.
- On May 14, 1981, the port authority issued a gate pass authorizing the consignee to take possession of the cargo.
- The consignee physically retrieved the cargo between May 18 and May 25, 1981; a later survey reported damage.
- The consignee filed suit on May 18, 1982.
- The carrier renewed a summary-judgment motion asserting the claim was barred by COGSA’s one-year limitations period; the consignee cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability.

## Issues

1. When does COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations for cargo-damage claims begin to run: upon notice of arrival and opportunity to retrieve the cargo, or upon actual retrieval/inspection?
2. If the limitations period bars the action, may the consignee nonetheless obtain partial summary judgment on liability based on alleged admissions by the carrier?

## Decision

- The court granted the carrier’s renewed motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action as time-barred.
- The court held the one-year period began no later than May 14, 1981, when the consignee was authorized to retrieve the cargo, making the May 18, 1982 filing untimely.
- The court denied the consignee’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment because the limitations bar disposed of the case without reaching liability.

## Legal Principles

- Under COGSA, the one-year limitations period for cargo claims begins when the consignee is notified of the cargo’s arrival and has a reasonable legal and practical opportunity to retrieve it.
- The start of the limitations period is not deferred until the consignee actually retrieves, inspects, or discovers damage in the cargo.
- A dispositive statute-of-limitations defense precludes adjudication of liability on the merits in the same action.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the cargo-damage suit because COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations ran from the date the consignee had notice and authorization to retrieve the cargo, and the complaint was filed more than one year after that opportunity arose.


Lithotip, C.A. v. S.S. Guarico, 592 F. Supp. 1280 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)