Definition Of 'Package' Under Cogsa

16 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Binladen BSB Landscaping v. M.V. "Nedlloyd Rotterdam"
  759 F.2d 1006· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that plants shipped in containers, where the bill of lading did not specify individual packaging, are 'goods not shipped in packages' under COGSA, and liability is limited per customary freight unit, not per container or per plant.
• Sony Magnetic Prods. Inc. OF Am. v. Merivienti O/Y
  863 F.2d 1537· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendants failed to rebut Sony's prima facie case under COGSA and that the $500 per package limitation applied to the 1320 cartons, not the 52 pallets.
• Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Pac. FAR E. Line, Inc.
  491 F.2d 960· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a large electrical transformer bolted to a wooden skid for shipment was not a 'package' under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA).
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Inversiones Navieras Imparca
  646 F.2d 169· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that individual cartons packed within a shipping container constitute separate 'packages' for the purpose of COGSA's $500 liability limitation, not the container itself.
• Croft & Scully Co. v. M/V Skulptor Vuchetich
  664 F.2d 1277· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-04 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a container is not a COGSA package if its contents and number of units are disclosed in the bill of lading, and that the determination of a customary freight unit is a question of fact for the trial court.
• Allied Int'l Am. Eagle Trading Corp. v. S.S. "Yang Ming
  672 F.2d 1055· 2d Cir.· 1982-02-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that under the circumstances, the pallets, as listed on the bill of lading, should be considered 'packages' for the purpose of COGSA's liability limitation, not the individual cartons and drums.
• Seguros "Illimani" S.A. v. M/V Popi P
  929 F.2d 89· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that individual tin ingots are not COGSA 'packages' for liability limitation purposes, and that bundles of ingots, as indicated by other bill of lading entries and the physical packaging, constitute the relevant COGSA packages. The court also affirmed the stevedore
• VAN DER Salm Bulb Farms, Inc. v. Hapag Lloyd, AG
  818 F.2d 699· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that market value is adequate to establish actual damages under COGSA, and that the plastic trays containing flower bulbs constituted 'packages' for the purpose of COGSA's liability limitation.
• Shinko Boeki Co., Ltd. v. S.S. "Pioneer Moon"
  507 F.2d 342· 2d Cir.· 1974-11-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the carrier-provided tanks used for shipping liquid latex were not 'packages' or 'customary freight units' under COGSA § 4(5), and thus the carrier's liability limitation did not apply.
• Smythgreyhound v. M/V "Eurygenes
  666 F.2d 746· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-18 ·cited 4×
  A carrier-supplied container is not a COGSA package if the bill of lading discloses the contents, regardless of whether the shipper chose to use containers.
• Interested Underwriters v. Seafreight Line, Ltd.
  971 So. 2d 892· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-11-28 ·cited 2×
  Interested Underwriters appeals summary judgment in a COGSA case, challenging whether 1,175 cartons of perfume constitute 63 packages (8 pallets + 55 loose cartons) or 1,175 individual packages for purposes of the statutory $500-per-package loss limitation. The court reverses, ho
• MacCLENNY Prods., Inc. v. Tropical Shipping & Constr. Co., Ltd.
  832 So. 2d 888· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-12-18 ·cited 2×
  MacLenney Products appeals a summary judgment that limited carrier liability under COGSA to $500 per shipping container rather than per individual jacket. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that material factual disputes exist regarding what constitutes a "pack
• Zurich Int'l France v. P & O Containers Ltd.
  99 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 1999-02-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the bill of lading's description of '2268 CARTONS' qualified as a disclosure of COGSA packages, limiting liability to $1,134,000, and granted Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on this issue.
• Ali A. Tamini v. Salen DRY Cargo AB
  866 F.2d 741· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the determination of whether cargo constitutes a 'package' under COGSA can be decided on summary judgment when no witness credibility issues are present.
• Universal Leaf Tobacco Co. v. Companhia de Navegacao Maritima Netumar
  993 F.2d 414· 4th Cir.· 1993-05-18
  The court held that where a bill of lading discloses the number of packages within a container, those individual packages, not the container itself, are considered the COGSA 'packages' for limitation of liability purposes, unless explicitly and unequivocally agreed otherwise.
• Elecs. Trade Ctr., Inc. v. Flota Venezolana deMAR
  561 So. 2d 1312· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-05-29
  The court held that the trial court erred in applying the $500 per package limitation of COGSA to the container, as each carton within the container constituted a separate package.