Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. v. Plano Molding Co.
696 F.3d 647
7th Cir.2012Background
- April 21, 2005 UP derailment damaged cargo; Kawasaki, KAM, and UP sue Plano for indemnity/damages.
- Plano contracted via CMT to design and obtain two steel injection molds; molds shipped from Kunshan, China to Illinois.
- Freight forwarder World coordinated transport; terms shifted from FOB Shanghai to DDP, but World bill of lading shows FOB and World as consignee.
- K-Line and World bills include indemnities/warranties; Himalaya clause in World bill extends terms to carriers; dispute centers on which contract bound Plano.
- District court granted summary judgment to Plano on negligence; appellate court reverses on World bill of lading contract issue and remands; negligence affirmed.
- Procedural posture: consolidated NY/IL actions; current appeal limits to contract claims and negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plano is bound to the K-Line bill of lading under non-traditional agency. | K-Line argued World acted as Plano’s agent. | No traditional/non-traditional agency established between Plano and World. | No, not bound under non-traditional Kirby theory. |
| Whether Plano is bound to the K-Line bill of lading by conduct/acceptance. | Plano accepted terms or benefited from K-Line bill. | Plano did not file suit under K-Line bill and did not accept terms. | Plano not bound by conduct/acceptance. |
| Whether Plano is bound to the World bill of lading as contracting party. | Plano contracted with World or engaged World as contracting party. | Record shows murky relationship; either CMT or Plano arranged shipping; unknown binding. | Fact question; remand to determine contract relationship. |
| Whether Plano owed a duty in negligence for packing the molds. | Plano had duty to ensure proper packing. | No duty; no unique knowledge or control by Plano over World/THI. | No negligence duty; affirmed summary judgment on negligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14 (2004) (limits on agency for liability limitations in maritime transport)
- Rickmers Genoa Lit., In re M/V Rickmers Genoa, 622 F. Supp. 2d 56 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ( intermediary not bound to bills of lading absent consent; persuasive)
- Regal-Beloit Corp. v. Kawasaki, 130 S. Ct. 2433 (2010) (foreseeability of cargo damage; through-bill terms binding not directly on owner)
- Great Northern Ry. Co. v. O’Connor, 232 U.S. 508 (1914) (employer-downstream carrier liability limits; intermediary authority to contract)