ARROW BEEF CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH ATLANTIC & CARIBBEAN LINES, INC., 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.
Arrow Beef appeals a trial court ruling that a one-year limitation period in a bill of lading governed by the federal Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) barred its counterclaim, despite Florida law prohibiting contractual limitations shorter than the state's statute of limitations. The court affirmed, holding that parties may contractually bind themselves to COGSA's provisions, including its one-year limitation period, when the bill of lading expressly states it is subject to COGSA.
Parties may expressly agree in a bill of lading to be subject to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, including its one-year limitation period for losses or damages to cargo. When a bill of lading contains an express statement that it shall be subject to COGSA, the one-year limitation provision applies and precludes counterclaims filed after that period, overriding conflicting Florida law.
[1] Parties to a bill of lading may agree to be bound by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, including its one-year limitation of actions provision, for losses or damages to ca…
[2] A bill of lading containing an express statement that it shall be subject to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is subject to the Act's provisions, even for carriage betwee…
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“Nothing in this chapter shall he held to apply to contracts for carriage of goods by sea between any port of the United States or its possessions, and any other port of the United States or its possessions : Provided, however, That any bill of lading or similar document of title which is evidence of a contract for the carriage of goods by sea between such ports, containing an express statement that it shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter, shall be subjected hereto as fully as if subject hereto by the express provisions of this chapter:”
Establishes the statutory foundation allowing parties to opt into COGSA's provisions, including the one-year limitation period, through express contractual language in the bill of lading.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArrow Beef Corporation entered into a bill of lading with South Atlantic & Caribbean Lines, Inc. for carriage of goods by sea. The bill of lading cont…
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 Carriage Of Goods By Sea Act cases and more on FLexlaw
The major point on this appeal is whether the parties1 to a bill of lading may therein agree to be bound by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act [46 U.S.C.A. § 1300 et seq.] regarding a limitation of actions *44provision of one year2 for losses or damages to the cargo. We note the provision of 46 U.S.C.A. § 1312 stating, inter alia:
“Nothing in this chapter shall he held to apply to contracts for carriage of goods by sea between any port of the United States or its possessions, and any other port of the United States or its possessions : Provided, however, That any bill of lading or similar document of title which is evidence of a contract for the carriage of goods by sea between such ports, containing an express statement that it shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter, shall be subjected hereto as fully as if subject hereto by the express provisions of this chapter:" [Emphasis supplied.]
In the case sub judice, the bill of lading entered into between the contracting parties falls within the above-emphasized provision of the statute and the trial judge correctly ruled that 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 been demonstrated by either party in these regards. Accordingly, the order and final judgment appealed and cross-appealed from are hereby affirmed.
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)…he Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (C.O.G.S.A.), limits the time within which to file suit to one 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 th…
-
Burroughs Corp. v. Suntogs OF Miami, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1985)…section 95.03 to be riddled with exceptions. The courts of this state have refused to apply an earlier, 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 t…
-
Hang FAT Co. v. Twin Express, Inc., 483 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…S.Ct. 766, 3 L.Ed.2d 820 (1959); Certain Underwriters at Lloyds’ v. Barber Blue Sea Line, 675 F. 2d 266 (11th Cir.1982); J.B. Effenson Co. v. Three Bays Corp., 238 F. 2d 611 (5th Cir.1956); 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); Foresman v. Eastern Steamship Corp., 177 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).…
Authorities Cited
- Foresman v. E. S.S. Corp., 177 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Coquette Originals, Inc. v. Canadian Gulf Line OF Fla., Inc., 240 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)