AN INDEMNIFICATION CLAIM THAT A CARRIER FILED AGAINST A STEVEDORE WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD SET FOR IN A STEVEDORING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE STEVEDORE WAS TIMELY BECAUSE A ONE-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD THAT WAS SET FORTH IN A BIL
AMERICAN ROLL-ON ROLL-OFF CARRIER, LLC; AMERICAN AUTO LOGISTICS, INCORPORATED; WALLENIUS WILHELMSEN LINES AMERICAS, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. P&O PORTS BALTIMORE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and I.T.O. CORPORATION OF BALTIMORE, a wholly owned subsidiary of P&O PORTS NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 4154
February 26, 2007, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a carrier and related entities, filed an indemnification claim against defendant stevedore, seeking to recover amounts the carrier paid to owners of vehicles that were damaged when a tow tractor broke free of its lashings. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of the stevedore, concluding that the claim was barred by a one-year statute of limitations. The carrier appealed.
OVERVIEW: An aircraft tow tractor, which had been loaded on the carrier's ship, broke free of its lashings and caused diesel fuel to contaminate other cargo. The carrier settled the cargo owners' claims and sought indemnification from the stevedore. The bill of lading issued by the carrier to a shipper contained a Himalaya Clause, which extended to the stevedore defenses that the Carriage of Goods By Sea Act provided to the carrier with respect to claims for cargo damage, and required cargo owners to bring claims for cargo damage within one year. The stevedoring contract between the carrier and the stevedore provided that the stevedore was entitled to all defenses available to the carrier under the bill of lading. Although the indemnification action was filed within the three-year limitation period established by the stevedoring agreement and Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101, the stevedore argued that the indemnification claim was untimely under the one-year limitation period set forth in the bill of lading. The court held that the indemnification claim was timely because the bill of lading's one-year limitations period applied to cargo-damage claims and not to indemnity claims.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
