Defendant Hueng-A Shipping Ltd. carried a cargo of frozen tuna in seven containers from Ningbo Port to Shimizu, Japan. The shipper was Ningbo Fengsheng Foods Co., Ltd.; the cargo insurer was Plaintiff PICC Zhoushan Branch. During discharge, the consignee found that the temperature of the goods in two of the containers was higher than normal - about -36°C rather than -48°C - which did not match the temperature required for the transport (-60°C), which resulted in irreversible cargo damage. After appraisal by a surveyor, it was found that the rates of depreciation of the two containers were 29.984% and 36.997% respectively and the damage suffered by Fengsheng amounted to 6,926,954 Japanese yen. As subrogation insurer, PICC Zhoushan Branch sued Defendant Hueng-A, claiming compensation costs in the amount of RMB390,533.42 yuan and interest. The Court held that there was no contractual relationship between the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s insured cargo-owner. The Defendant had issued a Bill of Lading to an intermediary NVOCC, which had issued the Bill of Lading on which the Plaintiff relied.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

PICC P&C Zhoushan Branch v. Hueng-A Shipping Co., Ltd.

  • Martin Davies,
  • Jiang Lin

摘要

Defendant Hueng-A Shipping Ltd. carried a cargo of frozen tuna in seven containers from Ningbo Port to Shimizu, Japan. The shipper was Ningbo Fengsheng Foods Co., Ltd.; the cargo insurer was Plaintiff PICC Zhoushan Branch. During discharge, the consignee found that the temperature of the goods in two of the containers was higher than normal - about -36°C rather than -48°C - which did not match the temperature required for the transport (-60°C), which resulted in irreversible cargo damage. After appraisal by a surveyor, it was found that the rates of depreciation of the two containers were 29.984% and 36.997% respectively and the damage suffered by Fengsheng amounted to 6,926,954 Japanese yen. As subrogation insurer, PICC Zhoushan Branch sued Defendant Hueng-A, claiming compensation costs in the amount of RMB390,533.42 yuan and interest. The Court held that there was no contractual relationship between the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s insured cargo-owner. The Defendant had issued a Bill of Lading to an intermediary NVOCC, which had issued the Bill of Lading on which the Plaintiff relied.