COQUETTE ORIGINALS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CANADIAN GULF LINE OF FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Coquette Originals sued Canadian Gulf Line for damages to stored merchandise, filing suit between one and three years after the cause of action accrued. The trial court granted summary judgment based on a one-year contractual limitation period in a bill of lading governed by maritime law, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that maritime law applied to this shipper's agent relationship.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment for the defendant. The one-year contractual limitation period in the bill of lading was enforceable under maritime law, which applies when goods are delivered to a shipper's agent rather than a warehouseman, and the court found no genuine triable issues of material fact.
[1] Contractual provisions shortening statutory limitation periods are void as against public policy in Florida.
[2] In actions controlled by maritime law, contractual shortening of a statute of limitation period is permissible.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under § 95.03 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., contractual provisions shortening statutory limitation periods are against public policy and void. However, in actions controlled by maritime law contractual shortening of a statute of limitation period is permissible, as authorized by the cited federal statute.”
Establishes the distinction between Florida's public policy against contractual limitation shortening in general contracts and the exception for maritime law governed by federal statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoquette Originals delivered goods to Canadian Gulf Line, a warehouseman and shipping agent. The goods became damaged while held by the defendant. Can…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contractual Limitation Of Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by the plaintiff below from an adverse summary judgment. The action, which was for damages to stored merchandise, was filed less than three years, but more than one year, after the cause of action accrued. On defendant’s motion the trial court granted summary judgment, based on a ruling that the action was untimely filed.
On appeal the plaintiff contends the trial court was in error in holding there were no genuine triable issues. The plaintiff’s goods were delivered to the defendant ap-pellee, Canadian Gulf Line of Florida, Inc., a warehouseman and shipping agent. The goods became damaged while so held by the defendant. The theory upon which the defendant sought and obtained summary judgment was that it had received the goods in the capacity of a shipper’s agent, giving a dock receipt reciting that the goods were so received, “for shipment on M/S Kirkstar to Kingston, Jamaica;” that the dock receipt incorporated by reference the terms of the company’s standard bill of lading which in turn contained a contractual limitation of the time for filing action for damage to goods to the period of one year, and which bill of lading invoked the benefit of the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 1300 et seq., by reason of which the rights of the parties were controlled by maritime law.
Under § 95.11(5) (c) Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the limitation period for actions for damage to goods is three years. Under § 95.03 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., contractual provisions shortening statutory limitation periods are against public policy and void. However, in actions controlled by maritime law contractual shortening of a statute of limitation period is permissible, as authorized by the cited federal statute. Foresman v. Eastern Shipping Corp., Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 887; Scheibel v. Agwilines, Inc., 2 Cir.1946, 156 F.2d 636; J. B. Effenson Co. v. Three Bays Corp., Ltd., 5 Cir. 1956, 238 F.2d 611.
Here the question of whether maritime law was applicable depended upon whether the goods were delivered to and received by the defendant for storage as a warehouseman (as contended for by the plaintiff), or as a shipper’s agent (as contended by defendant). If defendant was acting as shipper’s agent it was entitled to the benefit of the terms ofithe uniform bill of lading as provided for in the dock receipt, and to the one year contractual limitation period for filing suit.
Without observing need to restate the contents of the evidentiary material submitted by affidavit and deposition for and against the motion for summary judgment, based on our examination thereof we hold the trial court was eminently correct in granting judgment for the defendant.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kumar Corp. v. Nopal Lines, Ltd., 462 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…e year from the date cargo was delivered or should have been delivered to its final destination. Arrow Beef Corp. v. South Atlantic & Caribbean Lines, Inc., 280 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Coquette Originals, Inc. v. Canadian Gulf Line of Florida, 240 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). . Section 672.320(2), Florida Statutes (1981), provides: "(2) Unless otherwise agreed and even though used only in connection with the stated price and destination, the term C.I.F. destination or its equivalent requires the sel…
-
Burroughs Corp. v. Suntogs OF Miami, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1985)…lier, even more stringent,* version of this section in actions controlled by maritime law, Arrow Beef Corp. v. South Atlantic & Caribbean Lines, Inc., 280 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Coquette Originals, Inc. v. Canadian Gulf Line of Florida, Inc., 240 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Foresman v. Eastern Steamship Corp., 177 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and in actions where the only connection Florida had to the suit was the fact that the plaintiff resided here when the suit was filed, Aetna Casualty & Suret…
-
Arrow Beef Corp. v. S. Atl. & Caribbean Lines, Inc., 280 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…hat the one year limitation of action within the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act precluded appellant’s counterclaim, notwithstanding the provisions of § 9S.03, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.3 Coquette Originals, Inc. v. Canadian Gulf Line of Florida, Fla.App. 1970, 240 So. 2d 847; Foresman v. Eastern Steamship Corp., Fla.App. 1965, 177 So. 2d 887. Moreover, upon careful consideration of the additional point raised by appellant and the point on cross-appeal raised by appel-lee, we have concluded that no reversible error has…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Scheibel v. Agwilines, Inc., 156 F.2d 636 (2d Cir. 1946)
- Foresman v. E. S.S. Corp., 177 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- J. B. Effenson Co. v. Three Bays Corp., Ltd., 238 F.2d 611 (5th Cir. 1956)