Royal Insurance Co. v. Orient Overseas Container Line, Ltd.

525 F.3d 409, 2008 AMC 1776 (2008)

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

Royal Insurance Co. v. Orient Overseas Container Line, Ltd.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
525 F.3d 409, 2008 AMC 1776 (2008)

Facts

Ford Motor Company (Ford) (plaintiff) entered into a multimodal-transportation contract with Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. (OOCL) (defendant) for OOCL to transport Ford transmissions from France to the United States. Under the contract, OOCL provided transportation for thousands of transmissions overland from inland France to the French port of Le Havre, then by sea to Montreal, Canada, and then overland to inland locations in the United States. During the sea portion of the route, the container ship encountered stormy weather, resulting in the loss of some containers overboard and flooding of others. More than 5,000 of Ford’s transmissions were lost or damaged. Ford’s insurance agent, Royal Insurance Co. (Royal) (plaintiff) reimbursed Ford for the loss. Ford and Royal then sued OOCL in federal district court to recover the value of the loss. OOCL asserted the $500-per-package liability limit of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) as an affirmative defense. Ford and Royal argued that a different set of maritime rules, the Hague–Visby Rules, applied, claiming that the parties had incorporated those rules into the contract. OOCL moved for partial summary judgment to specify COGSA as governing the liability limitation and to identify each rack of transmissions, not each individual transmission unit, as the designated package under the COGSA limitation. The district court held that COGSA did apply and that each rack constituted a package for liability purposes. Ford and Royal appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Moore, 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 806,000 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 806,000 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 806,000 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