The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, origina lly a mem ber of the panel, was el evated to t he * Su pre m e C ourt o n Aug us t 8, 20 09 . T he tw o re m ain ingm em be rs o f t he pane l, who are in agreement, have determined the matter. Se e 28 U. S. C. § 4 6(d ); 2 nd Ci r. I .O .P .E ; Un ite d S

tates v . Desimone , 1 40 F. 3d

45 7 (2 d C ir. 19 98 ). 07 -51 90 -cv Sompo Japan Insurance Company of America v. Union Paci fic Railr oad Company

UNITED STATE S COURT OF AP PEALS FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUMMARY ORD ER RULINGS BYSUMMARY O RDE R DO NOT HAVE PREC EDENT IAL EFFE CT. CI TA TI ON TO A S UM MA RYOR DE R F IL ED ON OR

AF TE R JANUAR

Y 1 , 2 00 7, IS PERMITTE D AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDER AL RULE OF A PPELLA TE PROCE DURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT = S LOCA L RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SU MMARY ORDER IN A D OC UM EN T F IL ED WI TH TH IS CO URT, A P AR TYMU ST CI TE EI TH ER TH E FE DE RA L A PP EN DI X O R A N E LE CT RO NI C D AT AB AS E ( WI TH TH E N OT AT ION “SUMMARY ORD ER”). A PAR TY CITING A S UMM ARY ORDER MUS T SERV E A COPY OF IT ON ANYPARTYNOT REPRESENT ED BY C OUNSEL. Ata s tat ed ter m of

th e U ni ted St ates Co ur t of Ap pe als forth e S eco nd Ci rcu it, he ld at the Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United Stat es Courthouse, 500 Pearl Stree t, in the City of New Y ork, on the 5 day of August, two thousand ten, th PRESENT : Robert A. Katzmann,

Barri ng ton

D. Parke r, Ci rcu it J ud ges. *

Docket No. 07-5190

_____________________ So m po Jap anIns uranc e C om

panyof Am eri ca, Plain tif

f-A pp ellee ,

Cv . C Union Pacific Railroa d Com pany, Defendant-Appell ant .______________________________________

Appeal from a judgm ent of the United Stat es Distri ct Court for the Southe rn Distri ct of New York (McMahaon, J. ). UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON , it is her eby ORDERED , ADJUDGED , AND DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the Di str ict

Co urt is REVER SED and REMAND ED to the DistrictCourt for further proce edings . De fe nd ant U nio n P aci fi c R ail roa d C om pany(“Unio n P aci fi c”) ap pe ale d f rom an amended judgm ent granti ng plainti ffs’ m otion for parti al summ ary judgment, which we affirm ed. Sompo Japan Ins. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. , No. 03 Civ. 1604 (S.D.N.Y. O ct. 22, 20 07 ); Sompo Japan Ins. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. , 341 F. App’x 707 (2d Cir. 2009). Union Pacific subsequent ly filed a peti tion for a writ of cer tiorar i. The Supreme Court granted Union Pa cif ic’ s p eti tio n, va cat ed

our ju dg m ent, and

rem an de d th e ca

us e f or f urt he r co ns ide rat ion

in light of Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal- Beloit Corp. , 130 S. Ct. 2433 (2010). Se e 78 U. S. L. W . 3 41 8 (U .S . Jun e 2 8, 20 10 ). W e as sum e th e p art ies ’ f am ili ari ty w iththi s ca se’ s underlying facts and procedural history. In July 2002, Kubota Trac tor Company (“Kubota”) shipped thi rty-two tr actors from To ky o, Jap anthr ou ghLo s A ng ele s, Ca lif orn ia f or o n-c arr iag e to Sw an ee, Ge org ia. Ku bo ta contract ed with ocean carrier Mi tsui OSK Line Ltd. (“MOL”) for the movem ent, and MOL iss ue d three thr ou ghbil ls o f l ad ingthat co ve red the car go ’s o cean and

lan d tr an sp ort

fr om Jap an to Georgia. Clause 29 of the through bill s of lading provided for t he applicat ion of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”), note following 46 U.S.C.§ 30701, to the ocean portion of the
movem ent. Clause 29 al so extended COGSA’s reach beyond the ocean porti on of the
m ov em en t, s tat ingthat “C arr ier sh all be entit led

to t he be ne fi ts o f t

he de fe nc es and

lim itatio ns inUS CO GS A, wh eth er the los s o r dam ag e to the Go od s o ccu rs at se a o r no t.” Cl au se 2 9 a lso stated that “[ i] f t

he US CO GS A a

pp lie s . . . ne ith er the Carri er n or t he Ve sse l sh all , in

any e ve nt, be or become liable for any los s or damage to or in connect ion with the Goods in a ny amount
ex cee din g $ 50 0. 00 pe r pa ck ag e . . . . ” Th ou ghKu bo ta h ad the op po rtunit

y to sh ip t he car go at full value li abilit y rates, Kubota opt ed to ship the tractor s for a lower freight r ate in excha nge for the $500 per packa ge limitation of liabi lity. Kubota pur chased insur ance from Som po. MOL contracted wit h CBX Intermodal (“CSXI”) to arrange for t he inland port ions of the
movem ent from Los Angeles to Georgia and CSXI subsequentl y subcontract ed with Union Pacific Railroa d Com

pany (“Union Pacific”) to perform the rail carriage for thatportion of the
movem ent. Thus, following the t ractors ’ ocean carriage from Japan, Union Pacific recei ved the tractor s in Los Angeles and commenced to carry them, by rail, to Swanee. I n Texas, the Union Pa cif ic t rai n c arr yin g th e tr act or c arg o d era ile d, dam ag ingthe tra cto rs. Pursu ant to its ins uranc e po lic y, Ku

bo ta c oll ect ed

the fu ll v alu e o f t

he tra cto rs f

rom So m po . S om po , a s su bro ge e, su ed Union Pacific to rec over that pa yment, arguing that Union Pacific was l iable for the full amount of losses pursuantto the Carmack Am endment to the Inters tate Comm erce Act of 1887 (the “Carmack Am endment”), 49 U.S.C. § 11706. Union Pacific defended on the ground that t he through bill s of lading extended t o it the l imited liabili ty provisi ons set forth in COGSA, thereby capping its liabil ity at $500 perpackage. In Re ga l-B elo it , th e S up rem e C ourt h eld that th e C arm ack

Am en dm ent “d oe s n ot a

pp ly to a sh ipm ent or igi natin g o ve rse as u nd er a sin gle thr ou ghbil l of

lad ing .” Re

ga l-B elo it , 130 S. Ct. at 2442. Since Union Paci fic was not a recei ving rail carrie r within the meaning of the Carmack Am endment, see id. at 2444, pursuantto Re ga l-B elo it an d o ur s ub seq ue nt d eci sio n in Ro ya l & S un Al lia nc e In su ra nc e , PL C v . O cea n Wo rld Li nes, Inc
. , _

__ F. 3d

__ _, 20 10 WL4

28 13 65 0 (2 d C ir. Ju ly 2 0, 20 10 ), t he thr ou ghbil ls o f l ad ingex ten de d C OG SA ’s $ 50 0 li ab ili ty limitation to Union Paci fic.

The judgment of the District Courtis rever sed and the caus e is remanded for fu rth er p roc eed ing s.

FOR THE COURT : CATHERINE O’HAGA N W OLFE, CLE RK