Mediterranean Shipping Co. Geneva v. Pol-Atlantic

229 F.3d 397, 2001 A.M.C. 1 (2000)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Mediterranean Shipping Co. Geneva v. Pol-Atlantic

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
229 F.3d 397, 2001 A.M.C. 1 (2000)

Facts

Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. Geneva (Mediterranean) (defendant), POL-Atlantic (plaintiff), and Atlantic Container Line AB (Atlantic Container) (plaintiff) were trans-Atlantic carriers. Mediterranean was the bareboat charterer, i.e., it had full control and possession, of the Carla, a vessel owned by Rationis Enterprises, Inc. (Rationis). POL-Atlantic and Atlantic Container were slot charterers, meaning they reserved a number of container slots on the Carla. A Vessel Sharing Agreement (agreement) governed the relationship between Mediterranean, POL-Atlantic, and Atlantic Container. The agreement included a provision that made Mediterranean responsible for the seaworthiness of the Carla. The agreement also provided that disputes among Mediterranean, POL-Atlantic, and Atlantic Container be resolved at the London Court of International Arbitration. POL-Atlantic and Atlantic Container placed containers of cargo on the Carla before it departed from France for a voyage to the United States. The Carla encountered bad weather and partially sank. The cargo owners sued POL-Atlantic and Atlantic Container for damages to their goods. POL-Atlantic and Atlantic Container then filed third-party indemnity actions against Mediterranean. Independently, Mediterranean and Rationis filed petitions seeking a judgment limiting their liability under the Limitation of Shipowners’ Liability Act. POL-Atlantic and Atlantic Container then moved to consolidate the actions relating to the cargo damage with the actions relating to Mediterranean’s and Rationis’s limitation of liability, which the district court granted. Mediterranean moved to stay POL-Atlantic’s and Atlantic Container’s indemnity claims until the dispute had been arbitrated pursuant to the agreement. The district court denied Mediterranean’s motion, and Mediterranean appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Parker, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership