Seaboard Marine Ltd Inc (the defendant) contracted with Darik Enterprises Inc (the seafood owner) to transport a container of frozen seafood from Rama, Nicaragua, to the 'port of loading' at Puerto Limon, Costa Rica, then on board the Angelina 24 to the 'port of discharge' at Brooklyn, New York, and finally to the 'place of delivery' at Elizabeth, New Jersey. The container was transported by the defendant by truck from Central American Fisheries to the defendant's container yard, located a few miles outside Puerto Limon, Costa Rica. The container then departed from the defendant's container yard for the port of Puerto Limon. However, the container was lost in the area between the container yard and the port. After paying the seafood owner under its insurance policy, the Great American Insurance Co (the plaintiff) exercised its right of subrogation to pursue a claim against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that pursuant to cl 4.b of the bill of lading, it was not liable for loss of cargo arising from hijacking. In addition, cl 4.a of the bill of lading defined the applicable time of cl 4.b as 'during the entire time the Carrier is responsible for the goods'. The plaintiff countered that the Harter Act 1893 applied in this case and the Harter Act 1893 prohibited a carrier from using terms and conditions in its bill of lading to avoid liability.

Held: Motion denied.

The Harter Act 1893 was largely supplanted by COGSA/the Hague Rules, which are now codified as the statutory note following 46 USC § 30701. The Harter Act 1893 governs a carrier's custody or care of property during the pre-loading phase, whereas COGSA/the Hague Rules governs for the period that the cargo is loaded onto an ocean vessel. A carrier may extend COGSA/the Hague Rules by contract to the entire time the cargo is in its custody, 'including a period of inland transport'. Although cl 4.a of the bill of lading extended COGSA/the Hague Rules to the time 'before loading on the vessel', the Court only upheld the 'contractual extensions of COGSA to periods ordinarily covered by the Harter Act 1893' to the extent that COGSA/the Hague Rules did not conflict with the Harter Act 1893. Therefore, the defendant's contractual extension of COGSA/the Hague Rules in the bill of lading had no bearing on whether the Harter Act applied here. The defendant undertook all obligations imposed on it by the Harter Act 1893 when it accepted custody of the container. Therefore, the defendant could not be exempted from its liability for loss of cargo in its possession prior to the loading of the cargo because cl 4.b of the bill of lading was void under the Harter Act 1893.