Opinion ID: 463733
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reimbursement of carrying charges

Text: 21 The district court found Goodpasture liable to Yemen on four separate indemnity claims, two of which concerned carrying charges. One of these was for $2,359.45, representing the cost for delay of the second ship, the Al Kulsum, when it was briefly arrested pending resolution of Goodpasture's dispute with Yemen over the claused bills of lading. The second claim for carrying charges was for the delay of the Safina-e-Najam from October 21, 1974 to November 5, 1974, and amounted to $20,262.81. Since these delays were, in the district court's view, solely the responsibility of Goodpasture, it required Goodpasture to indemnify Yemen for the carrying charges resulting from both delays. 22 An action does not become an action for indemnity merely because the pleader has so denominated it. Bunker v. Bunker, 80 A.D.2d 817, 817, 437 N.Y.S.2d 326, 328 (1st Dep't 1981). An indemnity claim seeks reimbursement for payment made to a third party, but in the present case Yemen paid the carrying charges not to a third party, but to Goodpasture itself when in November 1974 Yemen sought to settle the disputes over carrying charges and the claused bills of lading. Yemen's claim in the present case is thus no more than that Goodpasture delivered contaminated wheat that caused delays, and then wrongfully forced Yemen to pay extra to cover carrying charges during the period of the delay. Such a claim--for consequential damages resulting from delivery of defective goods--is one for breach of contract, not for indemnity. As a contract claim, it was time barred four years after the November 1974 payment. 23 Yemen contends that its right to indemnification from Goodpasture did not arise until the 1979 arbitration award foreclosed its attempt to recover from Muhammadi the carrying charges Yemen had paid to Goodpasture in 1974. This argument, however, misinterprets the nature of Yemen's claims. No funds for the carrying charges were paid in 1979. Any claim Yemen had against Goodpasture on the carrying charges would be the principal claim, and Yemen's arbitrated claim against Muhammadi was for indemnity. Yemen cites no authority, and we know of none, that would, upon failure of its indemnity claim, resurrect the claim against its principal. Thus, Yemen cannot obtain indemnity for failure to recover from Muhammadi in the arbitration proceeding. 24 Furthermore, even if there were some way Yemen's claim might properly be viewed as one for indemnity, it would still be time barred by the six-year statute of limitations for an indemnity claim, which, under New York law, would accrue on the date payment is made by the party seeking indemnity. Bay Ridge Air Rights, Inc. v. State, 44 N.Y.2d 49, 54, 404 N.Y.S.2d 73, 75, 375 N.E.2d 29 (1978).