FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUG 7 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1498 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 33 1- CV-J -2 5- HTS AL TA DI S U SA , INC. , f

or the use and benefit of FIREMA N' S FU N D I N SU RA

N CE CO MP A

N Y , it s su br og ee, Plaintiff-C rossDefen da nt -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us SEA STAR LINE, LL C, D ef en dant- Cr oss De fendant-CrossClaim ant-Appellee Cro ss -Ap pe ll an t, AMERIC AN TRANS-FREIGHT (ATF), INC., De fendant-CrossClaim ant-CrossDe fendant-AppelleeCro ss -Ap pe ll ee.Honora ble J udg e Eug ene E dwar d Siler, J r., United States Court of Appe als for the * Six th Circuit. 2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 7, 200 6) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , F A Y a nd S IL E R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * AN DE RSO N, Circuit Judge: Inthi s c as e inv olv ing am ar iti m e co ntr ac t, w e re vie wthe appe llant’ s c la im that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it f ound appe llant’ s c la im

ti m e barr ed
. Appe llant
ar gue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in hol din g th at

the Carm ac k A m en dm en t, a nd i ts tw o- y ear statut e of

li m itatio ns, w as ina

ppl ic ab le to thi s c as e. W e al so r ev ie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of

sum m ar y j udgm en t i n tw o c ro ss- cl ai m s br ough t by one ap pe lle e ag ai nst

the oth er appe lle e. A ft er

c ar ef ul c onsi de ratio n, w e af

fi rm the district court’ s order w ith regard to appellant’ s Carm ack A m endm ent claim , a ffirm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t onone c ro ss- cl ai m , a nd v ac at e an d
re m an d th e re m ai nin g c ro ss- cl ai m f or r ec onsi de ratio n by

the dis tr ic t c ourt. I. FA CTSIn April of 2002, Altadis and Sea Star enter ed into a Tra

nsportation Service 1 Ag ree ment (“ TSA ”) which re quired Sea Star to pay

Altadis for a

ny damag es for

a lost container
. The Ge nera l Rules of the TSA also state that Sea Star will issue a transportation bill of lading and export decla

ration for eac h shipment, and that the “te rms and conditions printed upon the B ill of L a din gsh a ll g ov e rn

a ll s uc h s hip me nts .” Th e TSAstate d th at th e B ill of L a din gwo uld g overn the relationship between the c arr ier a nd shipper and w ould be subject to the provision of the Carr ia g e of

Go od s b y

Se a Ac t ( “C OG SA ”). It also included “inland c arr iers” a s part of the definition of “Car

rier” in the ag ree ment, and extended the be nefits of the TSA to “a ll parties perf ormingservice s for or on be half of Ca rrier or the Ve ssel as employ ees, se rvants, ag ents or contra ctors, includingwithout lim itation . . . inland carr iers.” 3 In Marc h of 2003 , P laintiff-Appellant Altadis (“ A lt ad is ”) pur ch as ed a shipm ent of cigars and cigar bands from Congar International, a

com pany located in C ay ey , P ue rt o R ic o. T he shi pm en t, c ont ai nin g 24 78 c ar ton s of c igars a nd 2 0 cartons of bands, w as placed in a container and booked with Def endant-Appellee Sea Star L ine (“ Se a S ta r ”) f or shipm ent to Altadis in Tam pa, F lorida. T he cigars

1 and cigar bands wer e to be shippedfrom Puerto Rico to the port in Jacksonv ille, Florida. From

there, they

we re to be transpo rted overland to Tam pa, F lorida where A lta dis w oul d r ec ei ve the m . Asin gle thr oughbil l of la din g w as iss ue d inP ue rt o Ri co a nd c ove re d th e en tir e shi pm en t i nc lud ing the oc ean vo y ag e to J ac kson vil le and the overland transpo rtation from Jacksonvi lle to Tam

pa. On Mar ch 17, 2003, the ship arrived in Jackson ville and Defe ndant-Appellee A m er ic anT rans- Fr ei ght

( “ATF ”) took poss ession o f the cargo as the inland carrier
re spon sib le f

or de liv er ing the shi pm en t t o A lta dis in T am pa . A cc or din g to the Tr ansportation Ser

vice Agr eem ent (T SA ) betw een A ltadis and Sea Star , A TF wa sSea Star a nd ATF had also sig ned an a g ree ment–a Unifor m Intermodal 2 Interc hang e and F acilities Acc ess Ag ree ment (“ UIIA” ). The U I IA stated that Sea Star would, from time to time, hire ATF to transport to various locations containers that Sea Star had tr an s p o rt e d

t o J a c k s o n v i l l e b y

o c e anc ar

r i e r un d e r ani n t e r m o d a l th r o u g hb i l l o f

l a d i n g . T h e U IIA g ov e rn e d th e te rm s o f t

he a g re e me nt b e tw e e n Se a Sta r a nd AT F , in c lud ingAT F ’s a g re e me nt t o indemnify

and hold har

mless Sea Star in the eve nt of damag e or loss ca used by ATF
. AT F a lso fi le d a

c ro ss- c la im a g a ins t Se a

Sta r, but th e dis tr ic t c ourt

dis mis se d it 3 and AT F do e s n ot a

pp e a l. 4 en ga ge d t o c on ti nu e th e carria ge un de r th e sa m e m ul ti m od al bi ll of l ad in g. At 2
som e point after r eceiving the container, A TF ’ s driver parked the truck w hich contained the cigar container in the front driveway of a c losed gas statio n. H e left the ve hic le ove rn igh t. Whe n he r et ur ne d th e ne xt d ay , Marc h 18 , to co nti nue the tr ip t o T am

pa , the c ont ai ne r w as gon e. I t w as f ound e m pty on M ar ch25, 200 3, in So ut h Dad e Co un ty, Fl or id a. Altadis sued Sea S tar and A TF in Florida state court under various theories of liability
. The c ase w as rem oved to federal court soon afterw ard. Both Sea S tar and AT F filed af

firm ative defenses (based on the statute of lim itations ). Sea Star fi le d ac ro ss- cl ai m

a ga ins t A T F as se rt ing c om m on l awc ontri but iona nd i nde m nity and also breach of contract. Sea Star then filed a series of m otion s for sum m ary 3 j udgm en t, a ll of

w hic h c la im ed

that A lta dis ha d f

ai le d to ti m el y

f ile it s su it w ith in one y ear after

the date the container shouldhave been delivered. T his on e-y ear statut e of li m itatio ns w as pr ovi de d f or both inthe bil l of

la din g and i n th e Carr ia ge5

of G oods by

S ea A ct ( CO G SA ). T he bil l of

la din g a lso state d th at

“ the r el at ion shi p betwee n Carr ier [S ea S tar and A TF ] and Shipper [A ltadis]
. . . shall have effec t
su bjec t t o t he pro vi si on s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C arri ag e o f Goo ds by Sea Act.” ATF fil eda si m il ar m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t f

or A T F as to the c la im s by A lta dis but

it did not ini tia lly r ule on A lta dis ’ c la im s a ga ins t S ea S tar or the c ro sscl ai m s by S ea S tar ag ai nst

A T F. L at er , the c ourt gr an te d S ea S tar’ s m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t a s to the c la im s by A lta dis a nd d en ie d S ea

S tar’ s m oti on f

or summ ary j udgm ent on its cross-claim s against AT F (e ffec tively ruling that Sea Star’ s cross-claim s wer e w ithou t m erit). T he district court then ordered the clerk to close the case. Altadis appeals from

the district court order of sum m ary j udgm ent for Se a Star and AT F. A ltadis’ appeal is based on the Carm ack A m endm ent, which states that a c ar ri er c an not pr ovi de , by

r ule or c ontra ct , f

or astatut e of

li m itatio ns o f le ss than two y ears f

or bringing a civil action. Altadis argues that the Car m ack Am endm ent, w ith its two-y ear m inim um statute of lim itations , governs the case,
an d th at the one -y ear statut e of

li m itatio ns r el ie d up on b y S ea S tar an d A T F, a nd
use d by the c ourt t o gr an t sum

m ar y j udgm en t, is ina

ppl ic ab le
. S ea

S tar se ek s rev ie w of t he di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l o f it s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n i ts twoAltadis does not challeng e the district cour t’s findingthat more than one y ear has 4 passed. Altadis a

rgues only

that the applica

ble statute of limitations is t he Carma ck Amendment’s minimum two-y ear statute, not the one-year

statute provided f

or in the bill of ladingand COGSA. 6 cr oss -c la im s br ough t a ga ins t A T F: one und er ac om m on l awthe or

y of c ontri but ion
an d i nd em

ni ty, an d a no th er al le gi ng bre ach of c on tra ct .

II. D ISCU SSION T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t t o A T F an d S ea S tar on A lta dis ’ s c om

pla int ba se d onthe langua ge c ont ai ne d inthe bil l of la din g is sue d by Sea Star. T he district court relied upon two groun ds: (1) the bill of lading issued
w as a“ thr ough ” bil l of

la din g – o r one iss ue d to the f ina l de sti na tio n – and the re fo re a ll carr ie rs , inc lud ing land c ar ri er s, a re sub

j ec t t o it s te rm s and ( 2) the bil l of lading sp ecifica lly

incorporated CO GS A into the agree m ent, and therefore CO G SAa nd i ts o ne -y ear statut e of li m itatio ns, not

the Carm ac k A m en dm en t, applies to th e case . U sin g th e da te of

the se co nd am en de d c om pla int f ile d by A lta dis a nd the da te of the a lle ge d th ef

t or los s of the c igar co nta ine r, the dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d w ith A T F an d S ea

S tar that m or e than on e y ear ha d pa sse d be tw ee n th e los s to A lta dis
an d th e se rv ic e of

pr oc es s onA T F an d S ea S tar. T he c ourt the n qu ote d f ro m the 4 langua ge of

the bil l of

la din g, w hic h sa id tha t su its f or los s or da m ag e to c ar goThe district cour t’s detailed or der, which included its leg al ana ly sis reg ardingthe 5 statute of limitations, was applicable only to ATF’ s motion for summary judgme nt. Docket 86. In a sec ond, subsequent orde r, the c ourt made a simil ar r uling on Sea

Star’s motion for summary judgme nt “[b] ased upon [the] Court’s prior Order . . . and the a

naly sis contained ther ein.” Docke t 87. 49 U.S.C. § 13501(1)(C) indicate s that the Secre tary and B oard ha

ve jurisdiction 6 over tra nsportation by

motor car

rier be tween a

place in “the United States a nd a plac e in a territory or possession of the United States to the e x tent the transpor tation is in t he United States.” 49 U. S.C. § 1 47 06 (e ) p ro vid e s f or the min imum tw o- y e ar s tatut e of lim itatio ns . 7

7 m ust be br ough t “ w ith in o ne ( 1) y ear af te r de liv er

y of the G oods or

the da te the Goods sho uld have been delivered,” and that no suit will be deem ed to have been brough t unless “ service of proce ss on Carrier or the Ve ssel has been effe cted.” Si nc e A lta dis did

not se rv e pr oc es s onA T F unt il Apr il 13, 200 4 ( an d th e los s oc curr ed on M ar ch25, 200 3) , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that A T F w as e nti tle d to
sum m ar y j udgm en t. 5 O n a ppe al , A lta dis a rg ue s th at the Carm ac k A m en dm en t, a nd i ts m ini m um tw o- y ear statut e of

li m itatio ns, appl ie s, a nd n ot the one -y ear statut e of li m itatio ns providedfor in the bill of lading andCO GS A. A ltadis su ggests th at the Sec retar y o f T ra n s p o rt at i o n an dSu rf ac e T ra n s p o rt at i o n Bo ar dh av e ju ri s d i ct i o n o f A TF ’s
carr iage on the overland (Jacksonv ille to Tam pa) leg, and that the Carm ack

6 Am endm ent’ s m inim

um two-y ear statute of lim itations is applicable. 746 U. S.C. § 1 30 3( 6) pr ov ide s th at th e c arr ie r “ sh a ll b e dis c ha rg e d f ro m a ll l ia

bil ity 8 in r e sp e c t of

los s o r d ama g e un le ss s uit is b ro ught w ith in o ne y e ar. ” Th e bil l of la din gc onta ins a simil ar pr ovision. 8 O n th e oth er

hand, S ea

S tar an d A T F ar gue that the ins tant c ar ri ag e is
m ar iti m e co m

m er ce gov er

ne d by am ar iti m e co ntr ac t. T he y a rg ue that the governin g law is the bill of lading and COG SA , both of which provide for a oney ear statut e of

li m itatio ns. 8 T he que sti on w ithw hic h w e ar e fa ce d is str ai ght fo rw ar d: w he re asin gle bil l of la din g c ove rs ashi pm en t f ro m P ue rt o R ic o to T am

pa( inc lud ing the oc ean le g to Jacksonv ille and the overland leg from Jacksonvi lle to Tam

pa), does the Carm ack A m en dm en t and i ts tw o- y ear m ini m um statut e of li m itatio ns a

ppl y to a los s occurring on the overland leg, or does the one-y ear statute of lim itations provided f or i n t he b i l l o f

l a di ng a nd

C O G S A app l y ? T he c as e lawha s e sta

bli she d th at

the Carm ac k A m en dm en t do es not appl y to
a shi pm en t f

ro m af or ei gn c ountry

to the U nit ed

S ta te s ( inc lud ing a n oc ean le g and overland leg to th e final destination in the United State s) unless the do m estic,
ove rl an d le g is c ove re d by ase parate bil l of

la din g. T he S ixth C ir cu it so h el d in Am erican Road Service Co. v. Consolid ated Rail, 348 F.3d 565, 568 ( 6th Cir. 2003 ) (h old ing that the Carm ac k A m en dm en t and i ts tw o- y ear m ini m um statut e of l i mi t a t i o n s d o e s n o tap p l y t o as h i p men tf r o m a f o r e i g n c o u n t ry g o v e rn e db y aOnly the Ninth Circuit has rea ched a differ ent re sult. S ee N eptune Or ient L ines v. 9 Bur lington N. a

nd Santa Fe , 213 F.3d 1118, 1119 ( 9th Cir. 2000) (“in the pa st we have held that [t he Carma ck Amendme nt] applies to separ ate inland bills of ladingfor shipments to or fr om overse as ports .... The la

nguag e of the statute also enc ompasses the inland legof an ove rsea s shipment conducted unde r a sing le, ‘through’ bill of lading... to the extent that the shipm ent runs beyond the dominion of the Carria g e of G oods by Sea Ac t.”). The Ninth Circuit’s holding and dis c us sio n is lim ite d to a

sin g le se nte nc e , c ite s n o a uth or ity fo r i ts p os iti on , a

nd do e s n ot d isc us s the opposingcase law. 9 t h r o u g h b i l l o f

l a d i n g , “ u n l e s s ad o mes t i c s e g men to f t h e s h i p men ti s c o v e r e db y a se parate dom es tic bil l of

la din g. ” ). I n S ha o v. L ink Carg o ( T ai w an ) L td. , 986 F
. 2d 700, 703 ( 4thCi r. 199 3) , the c ourt he ld tha t the Carm ac k A m en dm en t do es not ap ply to shi pm en ts f

ro m af or ei gn c ountry

to the U nit ed

S ta te s “ unl es s adom es tic
se gm en t of

the shi pm en t i s c ove re d by ase parate bil l of

la din g. ” T he S ev en th Ci rc uit is in a cc or d; s ee Ca

pit al Co nve rt ing E qui pm en t v. L E P T ranspo rt , 965 F
. 2d 391, 394 ( 7thCi r. 199 2) ( hol din g th at the Carm ac k A m en dm en t do es not appl y to
a shi pm en t f

ro m af or ei gn c ountry

to the U nit ed

S ta te s c ove re d by

athr oughbil l of la din g, “ unl es s a

dom es tic se gm en t of

the shi pm en t i s c ove re d by ase parate dom es tic bil l of

la din g. ”)
. D ic tain our

ow n c ir cu it is c onsi ste nt w iththe F ourth, 9 Si xt h a nd Sev en th Cir cu it s. In Swift Text il es , Inc . v. Watk in s M ot orLin es , Inc ., 799 F.2d 697 (11th Cir. 1986), we held that the Carm ack A m endm ent was ap pli ca ble to a shi pm en t f

ro m af or ei gn c ountry

w he re the los s oc curr ed

dur ing the dom es tic , ove rl an d po rt ionof the shi pm en t ( be tw ee n th e U nit ed S ta te s po rt

a nd the fi na l de sti na tio n inthe U nit ed S ta te s) , a nd whe re the dom es tic ove rl an d po rt ionof10

the shipm ent was c overed by a separate, dom estic bill of lading
. W e held “ that
w he n ashi pm en t of

f or ei gn g oods is se nt t o th e U nit ed S ta te s w iththe int en tio n that it com e to final rest at a specific designation bey ond it s port of discharge, then the dom estic leg of the j ourney (fr om the port of discharge to the intend ed destinatio n) will be subj ect to the Car m ack A m endm ent as long as the do m estic leg is co ve redby a sep arat e b il l o r bi ll s o f la di ng .” Id . at 7 01
. T he not ionthat a

se parate , inl an d bi ll of

la din g is apr er equis ite to the application o f the Carm ack A m endm ent originated from a discussion in an earlier
ca se be fo re the S upr em e Co urt. I n R ei de r v. T hom pson , 339 U
. S. 113 , 70 S
. Ct
. 499 (195 0), a

shipm ent of good s originatin g in Buenos Air es wa s sent over wate r to NewOr leans. I n NewOr leans, a new and separate bill of lading was issued pursuant to which the goods were carr ied to Bosto n, w here they arr ived in dam aged
co ndi tio n. T he pla int if

f sue d, c la im ing the Carm ac k A m en dm en t a ppl ie d, a nd the Su pr em e Co urt a cc ep te d th e pla int if f’ s arg um en t. R ei de r, 399 U
. S. a t 11 8- 19, 70 S. Ct
. a t 50 2- 03. T he Co urt e xpl ai ne d: T he te st i s no t w he re the shi pm en t or igi na te d, but w he re the obl igatio n of

the carr ie r as r ec ei vin g c ar

ri er or igi na te d. T hus it is n ot s ign if ic an t tha t the shi pm en t i n th is c as e or igi na te d inaf or ei gn c ountry , sin ce the f or ei gn portio n of

the j our ne y te rm inate d a t the bor de r of the U nit ed

S ta te s. T he oblig ation as receiving carr ier originated when re spon dent issu ed its origin al thr oughbil l of

la din g a t N ewO rl eans. T ha t c ontra ct of c ar ri ag e w as squ ar el y within the provis ions o f the statute.Appellant’s br ief on a ppeal sa y s, “Upon takingdelivery of [the cig ar] container
. . . 10 the Appellee , Sea Star L ine, L L C, loaded it on board its vessel El Yunque , issued its Bill of L ading . . . and proc eede d with the loaded c ontainer to Jacksonville, Florida f or fur ther tr ans po rt atio n o ve rl and

by tr uc k to the Ap pe lla

nt i n T ampa , F lor ida
. . . T hat sa id B ill of L a din gis a Multimodal Bill of L adingcover ing the entire tra nsportation from [Puerto Rico] to the Plaintiff in Tampa, F lorida.”

The seve ral provisions of the bill of ladingclea rly set forth: that COGSA provides 11 the g overninglaw (pa

ragraph 1) ; that a one- y ear statute of limitations shall apply (par ag raph 27) ; and that the same shall apply not only to Sea Star but also to ATF (par ag raphs 2( a) a nd 22). Al t ad i s n o td i s p u t e t h es e p ro v i s i o n s o f t h e b i l l o f l ad i n g. 11 Id
. a t 11 7, 70 S
. Ct
. a t 50 2 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). A s no te d a bove , sub se que nt c as es , citing Reider

, have held that a separate bill of lading for the dom estic leg of an int er na tio na l sh ipm en t m

ust be iss ue d inor de r fo r the Carm ac k A m en dm en t t o ap pl y . Altadis does not d isput e that it agree d to the Transportation Service A gr ee m en t ( T SA ) w ithS ea S tar, or that the T SAspe ci fi ca lly e xpl ai ns tha t the te rm s and c ondi tio ns p ro vid ed in the bil l of

la din g w ill gov er

n any dis put e. A lta dis al so d oe s no t di sput e that this w as a“ thr ough ” bil l of la din g, w hic h w as int en de d to
co ve r the e nti re voy ag e fr om P ue rt o R ic o to T am

pa , F lor ida
. F ina lly , A lta dis

10 does not dispu te that the bill of lading for the cigar shipm ent incorporates COG SA and its on e-y ear statute of lim itations
. Rather , A ltadis acknowledges that the on e- 11 y ear statut e of

li m itatio ns i nc lud ed

in the bil l of

la din g a ppl ie s to S ea

S tar as the
oc ean carr ie r, bu t ar gu es th atth e in la nd , do m es ti c le g o f th e tr ip du rin g wh ic h ATF tookcontrol of the containers is sub j ect to the Car

m ack A m endm ent, which bars12

statut es of

li m itatio ns l es s th antw o y ears . B ec au se the Carm ac k A m en dm en t i s a fe de ra l st at

ute , A lta dis a rg ue s th at

it “ pr ee m pts a nd s upe rc ed es a ll oth er law s and
co ntr ac ts h av ing le ss than st at uto ry r an k in cl udi ng the S ea

S tar Bi ll of

L ad ing which is governed by

Com m on Law .” In suppo rt of its argum ent Altadis attem pts to d isting uish th e above-cited
ca se s. A lta dis a rg ue s th at the c as es do n ot r equir e a se parate bil l of la din g, but
re qui re onl y

adom es tic bil l of

la din g. A lta dis a lso poi nts out that the c as es a ll inv olv ed f or ei gn s hip m en ts, w he re as the ins tant c as e inv olv es a n oc ean sh ipm en t fro m a po ss es si on of t he Uni te d S ta te s, Pu ert o R ic o. W e re j ec t A lta dis ’ a tte m

pt t o di sti ngui sh the c as e law . C ontrary to its argum ent, the ca ses do in fact require a separate bill of lading
. See Am erican Road Service Co. v. Consolid ated Rail, 348 F.3d 565, 568 (6th Cir. 2003 ) (the C arm ack A m en dm en t do es not

appl y “ to a shi pm en t un de r a thr oughbil l of la din g un le ss a dom es tic se gm en t of

the shi pm en t i s c ove re d by a se parate dom es tic bil l of la din g. ”) ( em

pha sis a dde d) ; S ha o v. L ink Carg o ( T ai w an ) L td. , 986 F
. 2d 7 00, 703 (4 th C ir
. 199 3) ( sa m e) ; C ap ita l C onve rt ing E qui pm en t v. L E P T ra nspo rt , 965 F
. 2d 391, 394 ( 7thCi r. 199 2) ( sa m e) ; S w if t T ex til es I nc . v. W atkin s M oto r L ine s, 799 F. 2d 69 7, 701 (11th Cir. 1986) (“ The dom estic leg of the j ourney .. . w ill be subjectAlthough it is true that Puer to Rico is a possession of the United States, that fa ct 12 does not serve to disti nguish the cited ca ses involving shipments from f oreign ports. The langua g e wh ic h A lta dis su g g e sts su pp or ts t he a pp lic a bil ity of the Carm a c k A me ndme nt t o sh ipm e nts to t

he Un ite d St ate s f

ro m U nit e d St ate s p os se ssi on s – 49 U. S.C. § 1 35 01 (1 )( C) – is identical to the languag e re lating to shipments from f oreign countries to the United States – 49 U.S.C. § 13501(1)(D)
. 13 to the Carm ac k A m en dm en t a s lo ng a s th e dom es tic le g is c ove re d by ase parate bill or bill s of lading.”). 12 W e al so b el ie ve that A lta dis ’ pos iti on i s inte nsi on w iththe opi nio n of the Su pr em e Co urt i n N or fo lk S outhe rnRa ilw ay Co
. v. K ir

by , 543 U
. S. 14, 125 S
. Ct
. 385 (2 004)
. T he c as e w as “ a m ar iti m e ca se about atr ai n w re ck
. ” I d. a t 18 , 125 S. Ct. at 390. T here w as a shipm ent of m achinery from Australia to Huntsvil le, A la ba m a, pur suant t o athr oughbil l of la din g. I d. a t 19 , 125 S
. Ct
. a t 39 0. T he Co urt he ld tha t the bil l of la din g w as am ar iti m e co ntr ac t, hol din g: “ so l ong as a bil l of la din g r equir es asub stanti al c ar ri ag e of goo ds b y se a, it s purp ose is to ef fe ct ua te m ar iti m e co m

m er ce – and thus it is a

m ar iti m e co ntr ac t. ” I d. a t 27 , 125 S. Ct. at 395. T he Court em phasized the im

portance of the uniform ity of the general
m ar iti m e law , a nd a cc or din gly the ne ed to re inf or ce the li ab ili ty

r eg im e Co ngr es s es ta bli she d inCO G SA , a nd the appare nt p ur pose of CO G SAto fa ci lit at e ef

fi ci en t
co ntr ac tin g inc ontra ct s f or c ar ri ag e by se a. I d. a t 28 -2 9, 125 S
. Ct
. a t 39 5- 96. T he Co urt a lso not ed

that a “ sin gle H im al ay a Cl au se c anc ove r both se a an d landA H ima lay a Cla us e op e ra te s to e xten d th e c ontr a c tua l li mit atio ns on lia bil ity 13 beyond the initial contrac ting c arr ier (e .g ., the oce an ca rrier) to include a lso downsteam ca rrier s (e .g ., the land

c arr ie r, No rf

olk Southe rn in t he Sup re me Court

c a se ). Th e bil l of

la din gin t

his case also includes such a

clause
. 14 carr ie rs downstre am . ” I d. a t 29 , 125 S
. Ct
. a t 39 6. F ina lly , the Co urt po int ed out 13 th atCOGSA exp li ci tl y

au th or iz es su ch cla us es . Id (c it in g 4 6 U.S.C. § 13 07 ). T hus, the Co urt he ld tha t N or fo lk S outhe rn , the r ai l c ar ri er ha vin g c ust ody

of the
m ac hin er y a t the ti m e of

it s dam ag e, w as e nti tle d to the pr ote ct ionof the li ab ili ty li m it at io ns in th e th ro ug h b il l o f la di ng . A lta dis ’ pos iti on i n th is c as e is i n te nsi on w ithN or fo lk S outhe rnin that i t
w oul d in tr oduc e unc er

ta inty a nd l ac k of

uni fo rm ity

int o th e pr oc es s of

c ontra ct ing fo r carr ia ge by

se a, ups ettin g c ontra ct

ua l e xpe ct at ion s e xpr es se d inthr oughbil ls o f la din g. G ive n th e hol din g N or fo lk S outhe rn , w hic h r ec ogni ze s th at ar ai l c ar ri er on the inl an d le g of

am ar iti m e co ntr ac t i s pr ote ct ed by the li m itatio ns i n athr oughbil l of lading, Altadis’ positi on would in troduce a differ ent result if the inland carrier
w er e a m oto r carr ie r. T he pur pose of CO G SAto “ fa ci lit at e ef

fi ci en t c ontra ct ing in contracts for c arria ge by

sea” w ouldbe underm ined. N orfolk Southern, 543 U. S. at 29 , 12 5 S .Ct. at 39 6. Inli ght of the S upr em e Co urt’ s op ini on i n N or fo lk S outhe rn , the a lm ost uni fo rm c as e law , a nd d ic tain our ow n S w if

t de ci sio n, w e hol d th at

– i n th e15

absence of a separate dom estic bill of lading covering the inlandleg – the Carm ack A m en dm en t, a nd i ts tw o- y ear m ini m um statut e of li m itatio ns, doe s no t a

ppl y to thi s m ar iti m e co ntr ac t c ove ri ng a shi pm en t purs uant t o asin gle thr oughbil l of la din g w hic h go ve rn s th e oc ean vo y ag e fr om P ue rt o R ic o to Ja ck sonv ill e an d a lso the inland transp ortation to Tam pa. Ac cordingly , the district court corr ectly concluded that the one -y ear statut e of li m itatio ns p ro vid ed

f or in the bil l of

la din g and i n COGSA was ap pl ic ab le
. Fi na ll y , we tu rn to Sea St ar’s ap pe al of t he di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l o f it s t wo cr oss -c la im s a ga ins t A T F. S ea S tar fi le d tw o c ro ss- cl ai m s a ga ins t A T F, a sse rt ing a co m m on l awc la im

( fo r co ntr ibu tio n and i nde m nity ), a nd a

br ea chof

c ontra ct c la im (s ee kin g a tto rn ey s f

ee s)
. W ithr es pe ct

to the c om

m on l awc la im , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of

sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or S ea S tar. B ec au se the re is no lia bil ity on the part

of S ea S tar to A lta dis , the re is nothin g f or it to re ce ive f

ro m AT F by way of contributio n or indem nity
. W ith respect to the breach of c ontract cl ai m , it is unc le ar

f ro m the r ec or d w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt di re ct ly a ddr es se d th is iss ue . H av ing f

ound S ea S tar w as una

ble to pr ove the f

ir st r equir em en t f

or com m on law indem

nification – prov ing liabi lity to a third party

– the district court de nie d it s m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t on

both c ro ss- cl ai m s and c los ed the c as e w ith out dir ec tly r ef er ri ng t o th e co ntr ac t c la im or the langua ge of

the r el ev an t16

c o n tr a c t . We d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s S e aS t a r ’s b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c tc r o s s - c l a i m, pr eferrin g fo r th e d is tri ctco ur t t o a dd res s i t i n t he fir st in st an ce. Acco rd in gl y , we va cate the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s im pli ci t de nia l of

S ea S tar’ s br ea chof

c ontra ct c ro sscl ai m a ga ins t A T F an d r em an d th at ind ivi dua l c la im

f or c onsi de ratio n by

the district court. A s to all other claim s raised on appeal, the j udgm ent of the district
co urt i s a ff

irm ed
. AFFIR MED IN PART, VACATED AN D REMANDED IN PART.