Opinion ID: 3037822
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Text: FedEx sought partial summary judgment that its liability was limited as to waybills 3045 and 3137 under the amended version of the Warsaw Convention presently in force between Hong Kong and the United States, which it alleged either to be The Hague Protocol of 1955 (“The Hague Protocol”)1 or the Montreal Protocol No. 4 (1975).2 Compared to the Original Warsaw Convention, both versions substantially relax preconditions to limited liability. The Original Warsaw Convention presumes liability of the carrier for goods lost or destroyed while entrusted to the carrier, but limits permissible recovery unless a special declara- 1 Protocol to Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, opened for signature Sept. 28, 1955, art. XI, 478 U.N.T.S. 371, 381. 2 Montreal Protocol No. 4 to Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, amended by Protocol Done at the Hague on 28 September 1955, Sept. 25, 1975, ICAO Doc. 9148, reprinted in Lawrence B. Goldhirsch, The Warsaw Convention Annotated: A Legal Handbook 401 (2000). 7158 CONTINENTAL INSURANCE v. FEDERAL EXPRESS tion of value is made when the goods are delivered to the carrier, and the shipper has paid a supplementary sum according to the value. See Original Warsaw Convention art. 22(2). However, Article 9 provides that “the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provision of this convention which excludes or limits his liability . . . if the air waybill does not contain all of the particulars set out in Article 8 (a) to (i), inclusive and (q).”3 Article 8(i) requires the air bill to contain the weight of the goods. By contrast, The Hague Protocol only requires notice of stop-over destinations on the waybill. The Montreal Protocol No. 4 abandons the cargo documentation provisions of the Original Warsaw Convention entirely, permitting limitation of liability even in the absence of an air waybill. Before the district court ruled on FedEx’s first motion, Continental broadened the scope of its suit to include two 3 Specifically, the air waybill must contain the following particulars:

(c) the agreed stopping places, provided that the carrier may reserve the right to alter the stopping places in case of necessity ...; (d) the name and address of the consignor; (e) the name and address of the first carrier; (f) the name and address of the consignee . . . ; (g) the nature of the goods; (h) the number of packages, the method of packing, and the particular marks or numbers upon them; (i) the weight, the quantity, the volume, or dimensions of the goods; ... (q) a statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention. Warsaw Convention art. 8(a)-8(q) (emphasis added). CONTINENTAL INSURANCE v. FEDERAL EXPRESS 7159 additional waybills — 8101 8095 3067 and 8101 8095 3056 (“3067” and “3056”). FedEx maintained that Continental was barred from pursuing claims for additional waybills. However, the district court also permitted Continental to proceed on waybills 3067 and 3056. Because weight notations appeared on the waybills in evidence for 3045 and 3137, FedEx stated “for the purposes of this motion only, Federal Express will concede that this matter is governed solely by the Original Warsaw Convention.” Obviously, this concession was made because the waybills complied with all the requirements of the Original Warsaw Convention, including the weight requirement. Thus, partial summary judgment was granted for FedEx on those two waybills. The district court permitted Continental to proceed on waybills 3067 and 3056 because Continental’s complaint stated that the action involved the loss of shipments “including but not necessarily limited to, air waybill numbers 3045 and 3137.” The copies of waybills number 3067 and 3056 did not contain the weight of the goods shipped on the copies of the waybills before the court; therefore, the district court denied partial summary judgment limiting liability as to those shipments.