Rímac Internacional Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguro, an insurance company acting under an assignment of rights, claimed the total loss of a cargo of cosmetics carried on the MV CSAV Hamburg in multimodal carriage. The lawsuit was filed against CMA CGM SA, Trabajos Marítimos SS (Tramarsa) as the agent of Hamburg Süd, Bonkur Trader, and Hermann Buss KG MS GmbH, and Cia Buss Hermann GmbH & Cie, the shipowners.

The first instance Court dismissed the claim. On appeal, the High Court (HC) reversed the decision, ordering the defendants to pay compensation. The defendants recurred the decision in cassation before the Supreme Court (SC). The defendants submitted that the lower Court had incorrectly interpreted and applied art 632 of the Code of Commerce (CCom), which establishes the period of responsibility of the master. The cargo loss was not the carrier's responsibility, because it did not occur during that period. The carrier delivered the container with the same intact seal as it was received. It was also argued that the Court had incorrectly interpreted the term 'FCL/FCL' in the bill of lading, which was considered as equivalent to the concept of door to door transportation. This term, according to the defendants, referred to the party responsible for the stowage and discharge of the cargo into/from the container, being the shipper and consignee respectively, not the carrier. It did not establish any place of delivery.

Held: The SC dismissed the recourse. The SC stated that art 632 of the CCom, indeed, establishes that the period of the master’s responsibility for the cargo runs from the moment the cargo is delivered at the pier or next to the ship at the port of origin until it is delivered at the shore or the dock of the port of discharge, unless the parties have agreed upon other terms. The survey report indicated that the cargo was stolen. Article 3.2 of the Hague Rules provides that 'subject to the provisions of Article 4, the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried'. Likewise, art 3.3 states that 'no carrier, master or agent of the carrier shall be bound to state or show in the bill of lading any marks, number, quantity, or weight which he has reasonable ground for suspecting not accurately to represent the goods actually received, or which he has had no reasonable means of checking'. Finally, art 4 states that 'a bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described in accordance with paragraph 3(a), (b) and (c)'. The bill of lading contained the expression FCL/FCL, which has been interpreted by international case law as equivalent to a door to door carriage modality, meaning that the carrier's obligation is to deliver the container to the consignee’s warehouse, and implying that it is under its responsibility during all this period. Having agreed on the FCL or door to door term for the contract, the carrier extended its period of custody of the cargo.