CORAT INTERNATIONAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,

v.

SAUDI NATIONAL LINES, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1983-11-01

No. 83-732

Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

439 So. 2d 1035 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1983) Positive Treatment

Cited by 1 case

Topics

Carriage Of Goods By Sea Act Statute Of Limitations

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Carriage Of Goods By Sea Act cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Assuming, arguendo, that the appellee deviated from the bill of lading by stowing the appellant’s goods above rather than below deck, such a deviation does not relieve the appellant of the requirement of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. § 1300 et seq. (1976), that suit against the appellee be “brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.” 46 U.S.C. § 1303(6) (1976).

Francosteel Corp. v. N.V. Nederlandsch Amerikaansche, Stoomvart-Maatschappij, 249 Cal.App.2d 880, 57 Cal.Rptr. 867, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 931, 88 S.Ct. 293, 19 L.Ed.2d 282 (1967).

See Hellyer v. Nippon Yesen Kaisya, 130 F.Supp. 209 (S.D.N.Y.1955); Potter v. North German Lloyd, 50 F.Supp. 173 (N.D. Cal.1943); Singer Hosiery Mills of New York, Inc. v. Canard White Star Limited, 199 Misc. 389, 102 N.Y.S.2d 762 (N.Y.Munic. Ct.1951).

But see Cerro Sales Corporation v. Atlantic Marine Enterprises, Inc., 403 F.Supp. 562 (S.D.N.Y.1975).

Since it appears on the face of the complaint that the appellant’s suit was brought well after the statute of limitations expired, the trial court was eminently correct in dismissing the complaint. See Roehner v. Atlantic Coast Development Corp., 356 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Birdsall, Inc. v. Tramore Trading Co., Inc., 771 F. Supp. 1193 (S.D. Fla. 1991)

…, a more recent and more thorough examination of the issue. Moreover, a Florida state court has likewise held that a deviation does not relieve a party from COGSA’s statute of limitations requirement. Corat Int'l, Inc. v. Saudi Nat’l Lines, 439 So.2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct.App.1983). 2. The Harter Act Based upon TRAMORE’s opposition, this Court has determined that, if COGSA applies, the one-year statute of limitations bars the Counterclaim. But BIRDSALL did not clearly establish t…

Authorities Cited

Francosteel Corp. v. Amerikaansche, 389 U.S. 931 (U.S. 1967)
United States v. Ingham, 389 U.S. 931 (U.S. 1967)
Roehner v. Atl. Coast Dev. Corp., 356 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw