1/4/2024 0 Comments Iina cargoDespite substantial efforts, including oral and written appeals to the Russian government, Multifoods was never able to recover the cargo or any part of its value, nor was it able to ascertain precisely what had happened to the cargo. At some point thereafter, the local Russian authorities, over Multifoods' objection, discharged and appropriated Multifoods' cargo from the Ozark. On Septemand September 27, 1997, pursuant to an order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Ozark and all tangible assets on board were arrested incident to a criminal investigation involving a different shipper. Petersburg, Russia aboard the M/V Ozark (the “Ozark”), pursuant to a $6,522,672.60 contract with ASCOP Corporation (“ASCOP”). In September, 1997, Multifoods shipped a cargo of frozen chicken and meat products from Pascagoula, Mississippi to St. We affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment to IINA. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and vacate in part the grant of summary judgment to Multifoods, and remand for further proceedings. It granted summary judgment to defendant Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (“IINA”) on Multifoods' claim, and CU's cross-claim, seeking indemnification from IINA. The District Court granted summary judgment in Multifoods' favor on Multifoods' claim for indemnification against defendant Commercial Union Insurance Company (“CU”), and awarded damages in the amount of $6,662,557.43 plus applicable interest. It raises several issues of contract interpretation with respect to two insurance policies that protected Multifoods against risks associated with the shipment. This diversity action, governed by New York law, arises out of the seizure by Russian governmental authorities of a shipment of frozen food sent by plaintiff International Multifoods Corporation (“Multifoods”) to Russia. Pruzinsky, Hill Rivkins & Hayden LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellee Indemnity Insurance Co. Friedland, White & Case LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee International Multifoods Corp. Yamali, Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York, NY, for Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant Commercial Union Insurance Co. Decided: October 17, 2002īefore: CARDAMONE, STRAUB, and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant, Ascop Corporation, m/v Ozark, her engines, boilers, tackle, etc., in rem, Eratira Navigation Co., Ltd., Eastwind Transport Ltd, Van Weelde Chartering B.V., Riomar Agencies, Inc., Roks, LLC, and Astep Corporation, Third-Party-Defendants. ![]() INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellee, v. ![]() United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |