Turning Point Industries Sdn Bhd (Turning Point), a Malaysian furniture broker and distributor, entered into a commercial agreement with Global Furniture Inc (Global), a US importer and distributor of furniture, for the sale and purchase of furniture. Turning Point contracted with Geologistics Americas Inc (Geologistics), a carrier and freight forwarder, to handle the shipments. Turning Point told Geologistics that it would notify the latter to release the containers to Global once it had received payment, and instructed Geologistics not to release any container without the plaintiff's prior approval. Global ordered 39 containers of furniture. Between 27 January 2003 and 3 June 2003, Geologistics delivered all the containers to Global without the plaintiff's authorisation. Global did not pay.

On 2 September 2004, Turning Point filed a lawsuit against Global and Geologistics, jointly and severally, asserting, among other things, breach of contract, demand for payment on account, and failure to stop shipment in transit. The trial Court ordered summary judgment against Global for payment of the furniture, and declared that the claim against Geologistics was time-barred. Turning Point appealed, alleging the trial Court erred when granting summary judgment in favour of Geologistics based on the statute of limitations. It argued that the one-year limitation period established in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 46 USC § 30701 (COGSA) applied to this claim, that limitation should be counted from the notice of delivery, and that Geologistics should be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations.

Held: Decision affirmed.

Claims under COGSA are subject to a one-year statute of limitations in 46 USCS § 30701(3)(6). COGSA applies to a 'tackle to tackle' timeline 'from the time when the goods are loaded on the ship to the time they are discharged from the ship': Norfolk So Ry v Kirby 543 US 14, 29, 125 S Ct 385, 160 L Ed 2d 283, 298 (2004) (CMI1454). Once the goods are removed from the ship or no longer remain under the control of the carrier at the port of loading or discharge, COGSA ceases to apply. However, nothing 'shall prevent a carrier or a shipper from entering into any agreement, stipulation, condition, reservation, or exemption as to the responsibility and liability of the carrier or the ship for the loss or damage to or in connection with the custody and care and handling of goods prior to the loading on and subsequent to the discharge from the ship on which the goods are carried by sea'.

Geologistics did not assert control over the containers until the shipments reached the US port of entry and were offloaded from the vessels. At this latter point, COGSA no longer applied, because it only applies to the transit of the cargo until it is removed from the ship. Hence, the COGSA one-year time bar does not apply to the plaintiff's claim against Geologistics. The parties' contractual time bar in the bill of lading governs this claim. Section 7 of the bill of lading establishes a nine-month time bar, counted from the delivery of the cargo. The last container was delivered in June 2003, while the lawsuit was filed in September 2004, outside the nine-month contractual time bar.

Regarding the moment from which limitation must be counted, COGSA defines the running of the limitation period solely by reference to an extrinsic event, which is the delivery of the goods: Servicios-Expoarma v Indus Maritime Carriers 135 F 3d 984, 988 (5th Cir 1998). 'Congress deliberately tied the limitation period to an extrinsic event and apparently paid no attention to when a cause may accrue or when a plaintiff has notice that [the cargo] has been damaged.' The plaintiff mistakenly relied upon the notice requirement for delivery of the goods under COGSA, but this Act and its time bar does not apply. The bill of lading does not require notice to the plaintiff for the time bar to commence; it only refers that the nine-month limitation period begins to run 'upon delivery of the Goods or the date when the Goods should have been delivered.'

As to estoppel, this doctrine applies when the plaintiff shows that the defendant's action caused the plaintiff to be reasonably and justifiably misled into missing the statute of limitations deadline. The doctrine of equitable estoppel requires something substantially beyond normal settlement discussions before equitable estoppel displaces COGSA's strong policy favouring strict application of the statute of limitations. The plaintiff failed to show that Geologistics misled, lulled, or kept the plaintiff from filing the complaint earlier.