St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. v. Neuromed Medical Systems Support
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2002 WL 465312 (2002)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Shared Imaging, Inc., an American company, contracted to buy a magnetic resonance imaging system (MRI) from Neuromed Medical Systems Support GmbH (Neuromed) (defendant), a German manufacturer. The contract (1) made Neuromed responsible for delivering the MRI to a German port for shipment CIF (that is, cost, insurance, and freight) to New York City, New York, at which destination Shared Imaging would arrange for customs clearance and transport to Calmut City, Illinois; (2) called for final payment when Shared Imaging accepted the MRI in Calmut City; (3) provided that Neuromed would retain title to the MRI until receipt of final payment; and (4) contained a handwritten notation that Shared Imaging’s acceptance of the MRI was subject to inspection. When the MRI arrived in Calmut City, Shared Imaging found that the MRI had been damaged in transit. Shared Imaging’s insurer, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company (St. Paul) (plaintiff), covered the loss and then sued Neuromed for damages. Neuromed cited the contract’s CIF delivery provision and moved to dismiss the case. St. Paul argued that the contract’s payment terms, title-retention terms, and handwritten notation negated the CIF term’s legal effect and made Neuromed responsible for any damage that the MRI incurred between Germany and Calmut City.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.
