A New York company, Y&L Auto Sales Inc (Auto Sales), sold a vehicle to a company in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic, A&A Auto Import (Auto Import). Auto Sales hired TRT International Ltd (TRT) to transport the vehicle. TRT issued a bill of lading for the shipment. The bill of lading identified Auto Sales as the shipper and Auto Import as the consignee. It contained a paramount clause, which incorporated the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 USC § 30701 (COGSA), and a limitation of liability clause, which read:

The limitation amount when US COGSA is applicable is an amount not exceeding USD 500 per package or customary freight unit, but not more than the actual value of the goods lost or damaged, unless the value (and nature) of Goods higher than this amount has been declared in writing by the shipper or consignee before receipt of the Goods by [TRT] and inserted on the face of this Bill of Lading and extra freight has been paid as required.

The bill of lading described the vehicle as one package, clarified that 'each unpackaged vehicle' was a 'Customary Freight Unit', and indicated the 'Excess Value Declaration' as '0 USD'. Accordingly, the vehicle was not declared to be worth more than USD 500. The bill of lading further provided that the carrier's agents or subcontractors 'shall be deemed to be parties to the contract evidenced in this Bill of Lading' and 'shall be entitled to the same rights, exemptions from liability, defences and immunities to which [TRT] is entitled.' TRT's subcontractor to transport the vehicle to the Dominican Republic was Sallaum Lines, the defendant.

US Customs rejected the proof of purchase for the vehicle and would not release it for shipment. The vehicle was held in a Customs lot at Bayonne Port pending resolution. During that time, a severe storm struck the New Jersey coast and caused significant damage to the port area. Although Customs had already cleared the vehicle, the storm damage at the port delayed its shipment until some time later. When the vehicle arrived in the Dominican Republic, it was found to have suffered significant damage from flooding.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in the Special Civil Part, seeking USD 15,000 in damages. Separately, the plaintiff brought a suit against TRT and was awarded USD 500, the maximum damages allowable under COGSA. The Special Civil Part found that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to prove that he owned the title to the vehicle, paid for the vehicle, or was the shipper of the vehicle. The Court further found that even if the plaintiff was the owner and shipper of the vehicle, he chose to have it shipped without insurance and under a bill of lading limiting liability to USD 500, which he already collected from TRT. Accordingly, the Special Civil Part found no cause of action against the defendant and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed.

Held: The judgment of the Special Civil Part is affirmed.

The trial Court did not err in finding that the defendant was not liable for the vehicle's damage and in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff failed to prove at trial that he owned the vehicle. The vehicle's title, bill of sale and bill of lading did not list the plaintiff as the owner or shipper of the vehicle. The plaintiff admitted that his name was not on the title. Even if the plaintiff had proven he was the owner and shipper of the vehicle, the trial Court did not err in finding that he failed to establish a right to damages from the defendant. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant failed under both the bill of lading and COGSA. The liability was limited by TRT's bill of lading and COGSA to USD 500, which the plaintiff had collected from TRT.

A bill of lading 'records that a carrier has received goods from the party that wishes to ship them, states the terms of carriage, and serves as evidence of the contract for carriage': Norfolk Southern Railway Co v Kirby 543 US 14 (2004) 18-19 (CMI1454), 'constitutes the contract for carriage and delivery of goods', and 'continues to govern the rights and obligations of the parties until delivery': MC Machinery Systems v Maher Terminals Inc 164 NJ 192, 198 (NJ Sup Ct 2000) (CMI1499). The plain language and intent of the bill of lading limited the liabilities of the defendant and TRT to USD 500: '[C]ontracts for carriage of goods by sea must be construed like any other contracts: by their terms and consistent with the intent of the parties.' (Kirby 31). The bill of lading provided that if the vehicle was damaged during the time it was in the custody of TRT, including before being loaded on the ship, the defendant and TRT's liabilities would be limited to USD 500.

The purpose of the limitation of liability provision was to 'limit liability of common carriers for damage to cargo where the value of the cargo is not known to the carrier': General Motors Corp v Moore-McCormack Lines Inc 451 F 2d 24, 26 (2d Cir 1971). By contrast, when a shipper declares that the value of its cargo is in excess of USD 500, it is 'alerting the carrier of its potential liability and allowing it to charge extra freight, if appropriate'. If Auto Sales, Auto Import, or the plaintiff believed that the vehicle was worth more than USD 500, they could have declared that the vehicle was worth more than USD 500 and paid the extra freight charges or purchased liability insurance. Instead, the plaintiff declared the value of the vehicle to not be in excess of USD 500 and thereby avoided additional freight charges. The plaintiff also declined to purchase liability insurance covering the vehicle.

COGSA governs bills of lading for the carriage of goods during the tackle-to-tackle period: COGSA § 1(e). The parties in the bill of lading may, however, agree 'to extend COGSA's coverage to the period before loading or after unloading of the goods'. See COGSA § 7; Maher 206; Greenpack of Puerto Rico Inc v American President Lines 684 F 3d 20, 24 (1st Cir 2012) (CMI1486). It was thus appropriate for the bill of lading to extend COGSA's liability limit 'to cover "the entire period in which [the goods] would be under [a carrier's] responsibility"':Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v Regal-Beloit Corp 561 US 89, 96 (CMI1455) (citing Kirby 29).

COGSA provides that 'under every contract of carriage of goods by sea, the carrier ... shall be subject to the responsibilities and liabilities and entitled to the rights and immunities hereinafter set forth': COGSA § 2. Amongst a carrier's rights and immunities is COGSA § 4(5), which provides:

Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the transportation of goods in an amount exceeding USD 500 per package ... [or] per customary freight unit, ... unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading.

Accordingly, since the liabilities of TRT and defendant were limited to the contractually agreed upon USD 500, which the plaintiff had collected from TRT in the separate suit, the defendant did not bear additional liability, whether under the bill of lading or COGSA.