AEROFLORAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
RODRICARGO EXPRESS CORP., APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2001-06-13
No. 3D00-2786
Before LEVY, FLETCHER, and SORONDO, JJ.
798 So. 2d 756 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2001)

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.


Holding

The court held that the limitation of liability under the air waybill was not applicable because the cargo was not 'in carriage' at the time of loss.


Facts & Procedural History

Rodricargo delivered goods to Aerofloral's warehouse for transport. After U.S. Customs inspected the sealed containers, Aerofloral requested Rodricarg…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Aerofloral, Inc., an indirect air carrier and freight consolidator, appeals from a final summary judgment in favor of Rodri-cargo Express Corp., a freight forwarder, in an action arising from the loss of cargo from Aerofloral’s warehouse. We affirm.

Rodricargo delivered certain goods to Aerofloral for transportation to Colombia. The goods were delivered in sealed containers to Aerofloral’s warehouse located near Miami International Airport. While in the warehouse awaiting delivery to the plane, the containers were opened and inspected by United States Customs. Aero-floral thereafter requested that Rodricargo send a representative to its warehouse to reseal the shipment. A Rodricargo representative, while resealing the shipment, discovered that one of Rodricargo’s containers was missing. As an affirmative defense in the resulting action filed by Rodricargo, Aerofloral unsuccessfully raised in the trial court a limitation of liability provided under the terms of its air waybill for cargo which is “in carriage” at the time of the loss. Aerofloral now seeks review of that determination.

We agree with the trial court’s ruling that the cargo was not in carriage at the time of loss. Once the cargo was opened by customs, it was no longer ready for transport, as evidenced by Aerofloral’s request that Rodricargo reseal the shipment. As a result the limitation of liability is not applicable. See, e.g., Royal Ins. Co. v. Latin American Aviation Servs., Inc., 210 F. 3d 1348 (11th Cir.2000).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw