This was an appeal against the decision of the lower Court dismissing, with prejudice, the cause of action brought by Miguel Rosa International Trading Corp (the appellant) against Aqua Gulf Transport Inc (Aqua Gulf) and ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd (ZIM) (the respondents) due to prescription.

The appellant was engaged in the importation of goods into Puerto Rico. It acquired a shipment of puff pastry from Hidalgo, Mexico. The transportation of its goods to Puerto Rico was the responsibility of the respondents. The ship that transported the product left Veracruz, Mexico, and passed all internal quality controls. On 28 January 2022, the container arrived in Puerto Rico. Upon receipt, the goods were frozen and appeared to be in good condition.

The appellant then proceeded to distribute the goods to its buyers. However, it began receiving complaints stating that the puff pastry 'was not behaving as it normally does ... [and] was sinking'. The appellant alleged that the shipment of puff pastry required that it be kept at a temperature of -20^o C during transportation at sea. It argued that the respondents had failed to do so, and the puff pastry had deteriorated.

On 10 March 2022, the appellant filed a claim against Aqua Gulf, but both Aqua Gulf and its insurer ignored it for more than nine months. Subsequently, this claim was closed. The appellant further alleged that on 21 November 2022, it filed an out-of-court claim with Aqua Gulf, but Aqua Gulf denied its claim. The appellant also maintained that the respondents refused to provide evidence regarding the temperature of the reefer container, specifically, the information contained in the temperature monitor of the container in which the goods were transported. The appellant argued that the respondents were liable for its total damages of more than USD 300,000.

On 15 December 2023, Aqua Gulf filed a motion for partial judgment, arguing that the appellant's cause of action was time-barred. It argued that the transportation of the puff pastry was covered by a bill of lading which incorporated the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). COGSA provided a prescriptive term of one year to file any legal action against a carrier, counted from the delivery of the goods. Since the goods were delivered on 28 January 2022, and the appellant's complaint was filed on 4 October 2023, the claim was time-barred. The one-year term was a period of expiration, and therefore no interruption was allowed. Accordingly, Aqua Gulf requested the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Carriage of goods by sea is regulated by COGSA. Specifically, COGSA regulates the transport of goods by sea from loading onto the vessel until their discharge. COGSA governs by its own terms in all cases of maritime transportation between the US and a foreign port. Thus, COGSA applies to all bills of lading or similar documents evidencing the contracting of transportation of a cargo of goods by sea from a US port to a foreign port, and vice versa.

COGSA establishes a one-year expiration period for the presentation of legal claims for damages or loss of the goods in question. This period begins to run from the date on which the delivery of the goods was made or should have been made. The courts have interpreted this one-year term as a period of expiration, so it does not admit extension or interruption.

Our Supreme Court has ruled that, in these cases of a maritime nature, federal maritime law applies, as it governs the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico. Thus, we agree with the Court below that the provisions of COGSA and its statute of limitations for filing a cause of action are applicable to the facts before us. COGSA sets a term of one year to exercise a right and/or legal action. For this reason, once the term had elapsed, the appellant is prevented from exercising its right.

Having established the above, we reiterate that the term of one year began to run once the goods were delivered to the appellant, ie, on 28 January 2022. Therefore, the appellant had until 28 January 2023 to file its claim. However, it filed its claim on 4 October 2023, ie 249 days after the end of the expiration term.