Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance v. Nippon Express U.S.A., Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Company (“Tokio Marine”) appeals the district court’s summary judgment limiting Tokio Marine’s relief to $16,500 under Section 4(5) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”). 1 Tokio Marine argues that the district court erred when it determined that the 33 skids listed on the K-Line bill of lading were COGSA packages rather than the 177 pieces also found on the bill of lading. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we review de novo the district court’s definition of “package” under COGSA. Van der Salm Bulb Farms Inc. v. Hapag Lloyd, AG, 818 F.2d 699, 701 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam). We affirm.

Tokio Marine contends that the K-Line bill of lading in the stipulated agreement is ambiguous and must be read in its favor, thus rendering the 177 pieces COGSA packages. We disagree; the bill of lading is not ambiguous. The 33 skids, as described by the parties and seen in the photographs, fit within a plain and ordinary definition of “package.” See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Vessel Sam Houston, 26 F.3d 895, 901-02 (9th Cir.1994) (noting that unless the number of packages listed in the number of packages column cannot…