502 F. App'x 66
2d Cir.2012Background
- Consolidated interlocutory appeals challenge summary judgments for ESMG and ESMT in claims arising from the March 8, 2005 Rickmers Genoa explosion after collision with Sun Cross in the Yellow Sea.
- SS-89 magnesium-based desulphurization reagent aboard Rickmers Genoa reacted with seawater to produce hydrogen gas, which exploded four hours after the collision.
- Cargo owner Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsges. and Chem One challenge COGSA and related federal maritime claims.
- ESMT (shipper) notified Rickmers of cargo type via HTS code; Rickmers master knew that magnesium reacts with water to produce hydrogen.
- Court reviews de novo summary judgments for lack of genuine material facts and decides against plaintiffs on COGSA §4(6), §4(3), and related common-law claims.
- Final holdings affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for ESMG and ESMT; misrepresentation and warning duties by third parties rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| COGSA §4(6) strict liability knowledge | Rickmers argues lack of knowledge of danger; cargo not declared dangerous | ESM aware of magnesium danger via HTS and Captain knew hydrogen reaction | Strict liability defeated; knowledge established thus no liability |
| COGSA §4(3) negligent failure to warn | Warning would have changed stowage decision | No evidence warning would alter stowage; MSDS not controlling | No triable issue; warning not shown to affect stowage |
| Federal maritime negligent misrepresentation | ESMT misrepresented cargo danger via indemnity letter | Claim abandoned; insufficient timely raising | Affirmed summary judgment; claim not preserved on appeal |
| Federal maritime negligent failure to warn by Chem One against ESMG | Chem One duty to warn due to knowledge | No duty for purchaser/receiver to warn carrier | No duty; Aslanidis supports lack of such duty |
| Third-party liability under COGSA versus carrier/shipper | Chem One seeks third-party COGSA liability | Court not addressing alter ego or third-party liability conditions | Not necessary to decide third-party COGSA viability |
Key Cases Cited
- Contship Containerlines, Ltd. v. PPG Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 74 (2d Cir.2006) (knowledge of danger defeats strict liability when carrier knows cargo reacts to condition)
- In re M/V DG Harmony, 533 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.2008) (knowledge of danger and exposure suffices to negate strict liability; causation requires warning impact on stowage)
- Senator Linie GMBH & Co. KG v. Sunway Line, Inc., 291 F.3d 145 (2d Cir.2002) (carrier knowledge of dangerous nature affects CO GSA 4(6) analysis)
- Aslanidis v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 7 F.3d 1067 (2d Cir.1993) ( purchaser normally has no duty to supervise seller; limits duty to warn)
- Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerner, 416 F.3d 109 (2d Cir.2005) (summary judgment arguments and preservation of claims)