The Plaintiff, a subrogated cargo insurer, sued the Defendant carrier for water damage to a cargo of steel coils carried by the Defendant in 38 containers from Jiaxing, China, to Yangon, Myanmar. Two survey inspections were made after the cargo was discharged in Yangon. The first was a joint inspection conducted at the consignee’s warehouse five days after the goods were delivered to the warehouse, which was 17 days after they were discharged from the ship. The second inspection was done 22 days later at the consignee’s warehouse without any representative of the Defendant being present, and after the coils had been removed from the containers. The Defendant questioned the validity of the second inspection report, arguing that it was uncertain whether the steel coils inspected on that occasion came from the 38 containers that it had carried.

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

Hangzhou Branch of PICC Property and Casualty Co., Ltd. v. MCC Transport Singapore Pte. Ltd.

  • Martin Davies,
  • Jiang Lin

摘要

The Plaintiff, a subrogated cargo insurer, sued the Defendant carrier for water damage to a cargo of steel coils carried by the Defendant in 38 containers from Jiaxing, China, to Yangon, Myanmar. Two survey inspections were made after the cargo was discharged in Yangon. The first was a joint inspection conducted at the consignee’s warehouse five days after the goods were delivered to the warehouse, which was 17 days after they were discharged from the ship. The second inspection was done 22 days later at the consignee’s warehouse without any representative of the Defendant being present, and after the coils had been removed from the containers. The Defendant questioned the validity of the second inspection report, arguing that it was uncertain whether the steel coils inspected on that occasion came from the 38 containers that it had carried.