The plaintiff, Global Oil Tools Inc, contracted with Expeditors International of Washington Inc (Expeditors) to arrange for the shipment of two containers from New Orleans, Louisiana to Constanta, Romania. Expeditors booked carriage for the containers aboard the M/V Bavaria, a ship operated by Hapag-Lloyd America LLC (Hapag-Lloyd). Expeditors, acting as a non-vessel operating common carrier, issued the bill of lading for plaintiff’s containers. The bill of lading incorporated the provisions of COGSA/the Hague Rules and a Himalaya clause.

The plaintiff twice delayed shipment of the goods, but Hapag-Lloyd failed to relay the plaintiff’s instruction to Ports America Louisiana LLC (Ports America), the stevedoring company responsible for loading containers onto the Bavaria. As a result, the ship arrived at the destination earlier than the plaintiff had scheduled. The plaintiff filed suit against Expeditors, Hapag-Lloyd, Ports America and other parties, seeking damages for the allegedly erroneous shipment of goods.

Hapag-Lloyd and Ports America filed motions for summary judgment, invoking the application of the Himalaya clause in the bill of lading. First, the plaintiff argued that the Himalaya clause does not apply because the bill of lading was not issued until after the erroneous shipment. Second, the plaintiff argued that the bill of lading was unenforceable because it was never signed or approved by the plaintiff. Third, the plaintiff argued that the bill of lading violated the public policy provided for in COGSA/the Hague Rules, art 3.8. Finally, the plaintiff argued that the Himalaya clause does not apply because Hapag-Lloyd and Ports America acted without authority when they erroneously loaded plaintiff’s containers.

Held: The court granted Hapag-Lloyd’s and Ports America’s motions for summary judgment. Regarding the plaintiff’s first argument, the court held that the bill of lading was not unenforceable merely because it was issued after the erroneous shipment. Regarding the plaintiff’s second argument, the court held that a bill of lading need not be signed by a shipper to be enforceable, so long as the shipper had notice of the bill of lading’s terms. Regarding the plaintiff’s third argument, the court held that the covenant not to sue contained in the Himalaya clause was enforceable and did not violate public policy. Finally, the court concluded that, under the simple language of the bill of lading itself, the plaintiff contractually relinquished any rights it may have had to sue either Hapag-Lloyd or Ports America.