Plaintiff insurer issued a liability comprehensive insurance policy of COSCO Logistics, and the insured company included Outsider Tianrong. Tianrong provided BOE with goods transportation, warehousing, customs clearance and related logistics services. After a batch of goods were imported, Tianrong entrusted Defendant carrier to transport them to the container yard of Defendant Guo’ai for temporary storage. During the storage period, Guo’ai did not give cold, the temperature of the goods exceeded the standard and caused total loss. Defendant Kunsheng admitted that due to negligence, it failed to notify the storage yard of cooling. Later, BOE’s insurer Pacific hired an assessment company to survey the damage and compensate it for the loss of goods caused by the above-mentioned incident. Subsequently, Pacific filed a claim against Tianrong. Plaintiff and Tianrong concluded a compensation agreement, and Tianrong agreed and authorized Plaintiff to pay part of the compensation amount involved to Pacific and after paying the above compensation amount in full, Plaintiff’s liability for the insurance accident involved was terminated according to law, and Plaintiff had the right to exercise all the rights and interests involved in the case by subrogation. Now Plaintiff filed an action before the court, asking two Defendants to jointly compensate the above compensation and interest. The court held that Guo’ai did not need to bear joint and several liabilities, and Kunsheng alone bore full liability for compensation, because Plaintiff exercised the relevant rights and interests of Tianrong on a subrogation basis, and the port goods warehousing contract relationship was established between Tianrong and Kunsheng, but Plaintiff failed to prove that there was a contractual relationship between Tianrong and Guo’ai, and Guo’ai was not at fault in the course of business operations.