Opinion ID: 536979
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: application of cogsa

Text: 15 The COGSA applies when there is a contract for carriage of goods between a foreign port and a port of the United States. 46 U.S.C.App. Secs. 1300, 1312. 5 EAC Timberlane v. Pisces, Ltd., 745 F.2d 715 (1st Cir.1984). COGSA discharges the carrier and the ship from all liability for losses or damages unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.... 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1303(6). Insurance Co. of North America v. Puerto Rico Marine, 768 F.2d 470 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1102, 106 S.Ct. 885, 88 L.Ed.2d 920 (1986). COGSA applies by its terms to the bill of lading in this case because it is a contract for the carriage of goods between a foreign port and a port of the United States. 16 The defenses and limitations of liability provided to a carrier under COGSA may be contractually extended to the carrier's servants or agents through what is known in the maritime trade as a Himalaya Clause. 6 EAC Timberlane, 745 F.2d at 718 n. 5. A Himalaya Clause is an exculpatory or other beneficial clause in a bill of lading which extends the immunities or protections of the carrier to non-carriers. The validity of such clauses has been upheld in various Circuits. See, e.g., B. Elliott (Canada) Ltd. v. John T. Clark & Son, Inc., 704 F.2d 1305, 1308 (4th Cir.1983); Certain Underwriters at Lloyds' v. Barber Blue Sea Line, 675 F.2d 266 (11th Cir.1982); Brown & Root, Inc. v. M/V Peisander, 648 F.2d 415, 423 (5th Cir.1981); Bernard Screen Printing Corp. v. Meyer Line, 464 F.2d 934 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 910, 93 S.Ct. 966, 35 L.Ed.2d 272 (1973); Tessler Brothers (B.C.) Ltd. v. Italpacific Line, 494 F.2d 438, 446-47 (9th Cir.1974). 17 When the benefits of COGSA are contractually extended by a Himalaya Clause, the clause must be strictly construed and limited to intended beneficiaries. Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill Machinery Corp., 359 U.S. 297, 305, 79 S.Ct. 766, 771, 3 L.Ed.2d 820 (1959). The clause itself must clearly express the parties' intent to extend COGSA benefits to third parties. Id. The terms of the Himalaya clause are clearly expressed if the benefits are extended to a well-defined class of readily identifiable persons. Barber Blue, 675 F.2d at 270. The clause need not refer to specific parties. For example, the parties' intent is clear when the bill of lading refers to agents and independent contractors who perform those functions and duties of the carrier within the scope of the carriage contract. Id. Cf. Generali v. D'Amico, 766 F.2d 485, 490 (11th Cir.1985) (term bailee used in bill of lading is sufficiently clear in expressing intent to extend limitation benefits to stevedore/non-carrier); Bellmer Kg. v. Terminal Services Houston, 711 F.2d 622, reh'g denied, 718 F.2d 1096 (5th Cir.1983) (clause's reference to independent contractors ... whose services the carrier ... may engage in extends COGSA limitation of liability to stevedore hired by agent of carrier). 18 In this case, Saguenay's bill of lading contained a Himalaya Clause, 7 and Ayala claims protection under this clause as Saguenay's agent and stevedoring contractor. As such it asserts that the one-year COGSA statute of limitations applies. Although Ayala is not specifically mentioned in the bill of lading, Clause 17 refers to agent. The contract's reference to agent must include Ayala as the stevedore, because it was engaged by Saguenay to deliver the goods to Papelera and was in the position to obtain the bill of lading upon delivery of the goods in accordance with the terms of the contract of carriage. Ayala was therefore acting within the scope of the carrier's contractual functions and duties. Accordingly, it is entitled to the benefits provided by the Himalaya clause, including the COGSA one-year statute of limitations. 19 Appellant's contention that clause 17's limitation of liability does not apply to the conduct in question because the goods in this case were not lost, damaged or delayed, is without merit. The clause states that every exemption, limitation, condition and liberty ... and every right, exemption from liability defense and immunity ... applicable to the Carrier ... shall also be available ... to protect every such servant or agent.... Under COGSA, suits for loss or damage must be brought within one year after the delivery of the goods. 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1303(6). A carrier's failure to collect the bill of lading in exchange for the goods is an improper delivery or misdelivery which constitutes a breach of the carriage contract subject to the COGSA one-year statute of limitations. See Allied Chemical v. Companhia de Navegacao, 775 F.2d 476, 481-82 n. 3 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1099, 106 S.Ct. 1502, 89 L.Ed.2d 903 (1986) (absent valid agreement to contrary, carrier is responsible for releasing cargo only to party presenting original bill of lading; definition of proper delivery should logically include carrier's duty to ensure cargo released in exchange for bill of lading); Timco Engineering, Inc. v. Rex & Co., Inc., 603 F.Supp. 925, 929 (E.D.Pa.1985) (in suit for misdelivery against stevedore, one year statute of limitations applies because of Himalaya Clause). 20 As agent of the carrier Saguenay, Ayala was performing a duty of the carrier when delivering the goods to Papelera. Its failure to collect the bill of lading in exchange for the goods was a misdelivery or improper delivery under terms of the contract of carriage between Saguenay and Papeis. As carrier, Saguenay is entitled to the one-year COGSA prescriptive period in a misdelivery suit against it. Because of clause 17, the Himalaya Clause, Ayala is also entitled to that limitation. 21 In conclusion, given the applicability of COGSA, Barretto cannot circumvent COGSA's operation by couching its complaint in terms of conversion or breach of contract. See Miller Export Corp. v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 534 F.Supp. 707, 710-11 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (exclusive application of COGSA cannot be avoided by couching claims in terms of negligence or other common law causes of action....). In view of this, it is clear that Barretto's claims are time-barred. COGSA provides that the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1303(6). In this case, the goods were delivered in San Juan, Puerto Rico on October, 23, 1986. Barretto did not file this action until July 22, 1988. Thus, the complaint was properly dismissed. 22 The district court's judgment is affirmed.