Opinion ID: 773252
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Against United Arab

Text: 45 Finally, Project Hope contends that the district court erred in dismissing the claims against United Arab because, according to Project Hope, United Arab owed it a non-delegable duty to provide a [reefer] suitable for the intended transportation. We are unpersuaded by this argument. 46 Even if United Arab owed a non-delegable duty to Project Hope to provide a suitable reefer, the dismissal of the claims against United Arab would remain appropriate. The fact remains that neither United Arab nor anyone to whom it delegated its duty of care to ensure the reefer's suitability acted negligently to proximately cause the humulin's spoilation. 9 See Project Hope, 96 F. Supp. 2d at 293 ([T]he Court finds that . . . the loss of the humulin was caused by something other than [United Arab's] own negligence.); id. at 294 (In sum, United Arab was not negligent. Among the defendants, fault for the incorrect temperature setting lies with Mill and Blue Ocean.).