Opinion ID: 216562
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Saga

Text: QT has successfully borne its burden to show that (1) Daewoo's agent had authority to sign on behalf of the Master and (2) Saga gave the Master authority to sign Bills of Lading. Nonetheless, QT's argument that Saga is a COGSA carrier fails for two reasons. First, even though Daewoo's agent had authority to sign the Bills of Lading on behalf of Saga, it failed to actually do so. Both Bills of Lading indicate that the agent signed As Agent For The Carrier Daewoo Logistics Corp, in a box labeled Signed for the Carrier. This is in contrast to Pacific Employers, where this Court affirmed the district court's determination that the shipowner was a COGSA carrier by virtue of the charterer's agent signing bills of lading on its behalf. 767 F.2d at 237-38. In that case, the charterer's agent signed the bills of lading as agents by authority of the master. Id. at 233; see also Thyssen, 50 F.3d at 1352 n. 3 (noting that the bills of lading were signed for the master). Further, in beginning its analysis, the Pacific Employers Court noted that the owner's liability depends on the effect of the signature caption `by authority of the master. ' Id. at 237 (emphasis added). Here, the agent's signature indicates that it signed on behalf of Daewoo, not the Master. Moreover, the Charter Party between Daewoo and Saga does not appear to indicate that the authority of the Master is necessary to sign the Bills of Lading; the relevant provision notes that the Captain, who if requested to do so by [Daewoo], is to sign Bills of Lading for cargo as presented. Therefore, Saga is not a party to the Bills of Lading because Daewoo's agent did not sign them on behalf of the Master. Accord Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V AKILI, 763 F.Supp.2d 599, 2011 WL 207968, at  (S.D.N.Y. Jan.24, 2011) (holding that the owner and manager of a vessel cannot be held personally liable as COGSA carriers where the bill of lading clearly names only [the charterer] as carrier and does not purport to be a document signed `for the master'); Mahroos v. S/S TATIANA L, No. 86-CV-6706, 1988 A.M.C. 757, 760 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (In general, a shipowner is not personally liable for a bill of lading issued by a charterer which does not indicate the name of the owner and which is not signed by or for the Master.); The Poznan, 276 F. 418, 432 (S.D.N.Y.1921) (L. Hand, J.) (holding that a vessel's owner was not liable under the bills of lading because these did not purport to bind it; they issued in the name of the charterer). Second, even if the language of the signature were not determinative, Saga is not a COGSA carrier because Daewoo's agent exceeded the authority granted to it by the Master by failing to sign the Bills of Lading in conformity with the Mate's Receipts. Both the Charter Party and the Captain's authorizations to sign on his behalf granted Daewoo and its agent only the authority to sign the Bills of Lading in conformity with the Mate's Receipts. The Charter Party even explicitly notes that Charterers [] accept all consequences that might result from Charterers and/or their agents signing Bills of Lading not adhering to the remarks in Mate's or Tally Clerk's receipts. Because Daewoo's agent signed the Bills of Lading as clean on board, it failed to incorporate or reference the Mate's Receipts, which themselves incorporated the Preshipment Report by noting as per P&I surveyor report. While this Court has yet to address this situation, other courts have found that when the signing party exceeds its authority in signing bills of lading not in accordance with the Master's instructions, the owner cannot be held liable as a COGSA carrier. See Cargill Ferrous Int'l v. M/V SUKARAWAN NAREE, No. 96-CV-1705, 1997 WL 537992, at  (E.D.La. Aug. 26, 1997) (holding that charterer exceeded its authority in signing bills of lading not in accordance with Mate's Receipts when required to do so by the Master's instructions and therefore the shipowner was not liable as a COGSA carrier); Tuscaloosa Steel Corp. v. M/V NAIMO, No. 90-CV-2194, 1992 WL 477117, at  (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 1992) (same). We find this reasoning persuasive and hold that Daewoo's agent exceeded his authority by failing to sign the Bills of Lading in conformance with the explicit requirements of the Charter Party and of the Master. QT argues that Daewoo's agent was unable to sign in conformity with the Mate's Receipts because (1) there were no Mate's Receipts, and (2) the Preshipment Report was not issued until April 11, while the Bills of Lading were signed on April 5-6. As to the first argument, Defendants have offered undisputed evidencean affidavit from Patt director Man Tak Yungthat establishes that the documents labeled Shipping Orders were in fact the corresponding Mate's Receipts for the Bills of Lading. QT has not come forward with any proper summary-judgment evidence to rebut this. QT's conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated assertions that the Shipping Orders are not Mate's Receipts are insufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact on this point. See Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 399 (5th Cir.2008). As to the second argument, the allegation that the Preshipment Report was not issued until April 11 is immaterial. [2] Each of the two Mate's Receipts was issued on the same day as its corresponding Bill of Lading. Both the Charter Party and the Master's Authorization require Daewoo to sign the Bills of Lading in accordance with the Mate's Receipts. Daewoo failed to do so. Even if we assume arguendo that Daewoo's obligation to sign the Bills of Lading in accordance with the Preshipment Report would be excused if the Preshipment Report had not yet been prepared, summary judgment for Defendants remains proper. The fact that Daewoo failed to sign the Bills of Lading in accordance with the Mate's Receipts is sufficient, standing alone, to establish that Daewoo exceeded its authority. Additionally, QT's contention that Defendants are estopped from making this argument because they had possession of and withheld the Mate's Receipts and Preshipment Report is unfounded; QT fails to offer any evidence of this beyond its conclusory assertion. Therefore, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants on QT's COGSA claims.