Law Offices of John C. Lane
Call us at: 201-848-6000
Commercial and Business Litigation
Court Finds That Household Goods Carrier May Proceed with Lawsuit Against Subcontractor for Losing the Customer’s Goods
Our client, Stevens Van Lines, Inc., contracted with a customer to move his household goods from upstate New York to Wilmington, North Carolina. The parties agreed to a released value of $75,000 in the event of any loss or damage to the goods. Stevens then contracted with Don’s Moving & Storage, Inc., to perform the actual move. Don’s Moving was to pick up the goods at the consignor’s home, warehouse them at defendant’s warehouse in Albany, and subsequently transport them to North Carolina. Don’s Moving picked up the goods and issued its own bill of lading, with a maximum liability of $2,500, to the consignor. The goods were stolen from Don’s Moving’s trailer which was purportedly parked in the warehouse yard. The consignor made a claim to Stevens Van Lines, which paid him the agreed amount of $75,000.
Stevens then sued Don’s Moving & Storage to get back the $75,000. Don’s countered with a motion to dismiss, urging that their bill of lading should govern. In a decision filed March 12, 2009, the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Don’s Moving’s motion, agreeing that our allegations of negligence and breach of the contract between Stevens Van Lines and Don’s stated valid causes of action.
Stevens Van Lines, Inc. v. Don’s Moving & Storage, Inc., Supreme Court of New York, New York County, March 12, 2009
New Jersey Superior Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against California Produce Distributor for Lack of Jurisdiction
Our client, a California produce distributor, sold a load of broccoli to its customer in Massachusetts. The customer arranged for transportation through a broker but did not pay for any of the transportation because one of the loads, not from our client, arrived unrefrigerated and damaged. The broker sued the customer in New Jersey, which had no connection with the transaction. The lawsuit also included claims against all of the California growers, despite the clear Non-Recourse wording on the Western Growers Association bills of lading utilized in the transactions. Plaintiff’s attorney then began to harass our client and its banking facilities for collection of the default judgment. We appeared in the Superior Court, succeeded in lifting the default judgment and then filing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Court granted that motion and also the customer’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s attorney gained nothing by his questionable efforts.
Alliance Shippers, Inc. v. The Alphas Company, Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey, 2008)
Major Coverage Victory for National Pollution Insurer
Our client insured the barge Cynthia M for pollution liabilities. The Cynthia M sank at its dock on the Hackensack River in New Jersey, laden with a cargo of caustic soda which could have discharged into the river and the surrounding wetlands. At the Coast Guard’s direction, the owner salvaged the barge carefully, avoiding any pollution incident, and then sent the bill to their Hull & Machinery underwriter, Global Insurance. This company became insolvent. The owner then sued both Global and WQIS for reimbursement. After a bench trial, the district court found for WQIS, accepting our points that the salvage was ordered to prevent a threat to navigation on a busy waterway, the threat of pollution had been abated by sealing the Cynthia M’s tanks and valves, and that the cost of salvage is the obligation of the hull underwriter, not the pollution insurer. The Third Circuit affirmed. WQIS continues to cite this landmark opinion throughout the Country, and uses it to support the premium for an ancillary coverage, made available to its policyholders, for salvage of a vessel involved in a pollution incident. The findings of this case, in our favor, has saved millions of dollars for our client.
Barge Cynthia M: Kearny Barge Co., Inc. v. Global Insurance Co., 943 F.Supp. 441, 1997 A.M.C. 715 (D.N.J. 1996), aff’d, 127 F.3d 1095 (3d Cir. 1997)
Arbitration Victory for Civil Engineer in $5 Million Planned Unit Development Controversy
A major New York-New Jersey contractor/developer brought a $5,000,000 arbitration demand against our client, the site and environmental design engineer, with regard to a large planned-unit development in upstate New York. The developer claimed that the engineer had delayed in procuring environmental and other regulatory approvals, and had made numerous design errors, all causing the multi-million dollar project to be delayed beyond a peak selling period and into an economic downturn. The Developer, represented by Peckar & Abramson, was able to establish a loss of more than $5,000,000, but we were able to thwart his attempts to place blame for the loss on the Engineer. Through a 35-session arbitration lasting over 13 months, we were able to establish that the Developer’s financing had been cut off by his surety company because they viewed the project as ill-conceived, that the marketing plan was flawed, and that that the real cause of the financial collapse of the project was the severe real estate downturn of the late 1980s. A three-arbitrator panel ruled unanimously in favor of our client. Client was sued, because they were convinced that an error had been made.
Tennanah Lake Associates v. Erickson & Schmidt Engineers, American Arbitration Association
