Compañía Nacional de Seguros SA (the plaintiff), an insurance company acting under an assignment of rights, claimed for damage to two cars carried from Panama to Costa Rica onboard the M/V Seaboard Trader. Seabord Marine Ltd (the defendant carrier) issued the relevant bill of lading which provided for the application of the United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of 1936 (US COGSA), which mirrors the Hague Rules.

The Maritime Court concluded that, as the bill of lading included the expression 'clean bill of lading', the carrier was liable for the damage as it occurred while the goods were in its custody. The court held that the carrier did not comply with the obligation stated in § 1303.2 of the US COGSA (art 3.2 of the Hague Rules).

Regarding limitation of liability, the Maritime Court stated that, under the US COGSA § 1304.5 (art 4.5 of the Hague Rules), the carrier is entitled to limit its liability up to USD 500 per package. The right to limit liability is not contractual but legal. Once the conditions to access the right to limit liability occur, the carrier is allowed to invoke such right to its benefit. In this case, the court noted, the carrier issued a 'short form of bill of lading' that states that the shipper must declare the value of the goods if higher than USD 500. The shipper did not declare the value. The carrier is only deprived of the right to limit liability when cargo damage occurs through deviation, quasi-deviation, gross negligence or malice. In this case, there was no evidence of misconduct by the carrier. Hence, the Maritime Court granted the limitation of liability and ordered Seaboard to pay USD 500 for each car.

The plaintiff appealed the decision, arguing that there was a quasi-deviation on the part of the carrier as the two cars were carried on deck. This statement was rebutted by the carrier, who argued that the cars were carried in a 'roll on, roll off' vessel, the main deck of which is covered and is thus considered 'under deck'.

Held: The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), acting as Court of Maritime Appeals, affirmed the decision of the Maritime Court. As evidentiary matters cannot be discussed on appeal, the SCJ upheld the lower court decision on procedural grounds.