Hanjin Shipping Bill of Lading Tracking – Track & Trace the current location & arrival time of Hanjin Tracking by Bill of Lading. keep Hanjin Tracking by Bill of. Hanjin Shipping website contains useful and updated information on vessel status, Hanjin Shipping Cargo Tracking Search Form: Use your Bill of Lading. On 31 August, it was reported that Hanjin Shipping filed for bankruptcy or the confirming bank of a letter of credit where a Hanjin bill of lading is presented.

Author: Kimi Bakinos
Country: Bahrain
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Software
Published (Last): 14 July 2004
Pages: 182
PDF File Size: 15.55 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.35 Mb
ISBN: 930-1-11446-816-7
Downloads: 18366
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Voran

The Carmack Amendment’s second goal is to provide uniform standards of liability for carriers. The Carmack Amendment is limited to situations where a domestic bill of lading is issued to govern domestic transportation. The parties do not attempt to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction, and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the parties are of diverse citizenship.

The better course of action is to resist the invitation to create a federal common law remedy against an ocean carrier for cargo damage that occurs during substantial inland transit. Hanjkn delivery to North Vernon, Indiana is a material term of the parties’ agreement. What does this mean? But, as will become evident in the following discussion, there is no factual basis for the federal claims against Hanjin.

Indemnity argues that federal common law fills in any statutory gaps of the Carmack Amendment and permits it to recover against Hanjin. Hhanjin the circumstances of this case, Indemnity’s failure to plead a state law claim against Hanjin does not foreclose relief. The parties’ briefs do not contemplate the application of state law.

Hanjin Shipping Line Update | September – mainfreight

Neither goal of ladinh Carmack Amendment requires the court to create a federal common law remedy against an ocean carrier for cargo damage occurring during inland carriage under a through bill of lading. It is not unusual for the Ports to charge storage on these containers in this situation. But, creating a federal common law remedy will not necessarily ensure uniformity.

It is to say that an ocean carrier’s liability for inland transportation of imported cargo is a creature of hannin, not statute. Determining factors are the parties’ choice of law, the places of contracting and negotiation, the place of performance, the location of the subject matter of the contract, and the location of the parties. The court recognizes that applying state law to interstate carriage cases may lead to some non-uniformity.


Jurisdiction remains even if the federal claims later prove to be without merit. The extended discussion herein is only to make clear that the court is not proceeding under federal common law. The displacement of state law by federal law is an issue that is not easily answered. Even if the contract were severable into sea and land based segments, the loss occurred during inland hsnjin. If the well pled complaint invokes the court’s jurisdiction, then jurisdiction remains even if the federal claim is meritless.

Orient Overseas Ibll Lines, F.

See Gordon, F. Indemnity paid Lowe’s for the loss and then filed this suit. Hanjin Shipping Line Update September Posted on 2 September Hanjin Shipping Line has filed for receivership on Wednesday the 31st August after losing the support of its banks, setting the stage for its assets to be frozen.

Writing for the Illinois Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Douglass eloquently wrote about the bkll of common law: Per the waybill and pf of lading, Hanjin agreed to carry the container from Shenzhen, China to North Vernon, Indiana.

Persons using containers enjoy the economy that comes from having cargo loaded into a container at its origin, and then remaining hopefully undisturbed in the container until arrival at destination. Second, uniformity may be an issue whether the claim is decided under state or federal common law. When a federal court creates federal common law, it must runs the risk of violating the fundamental doctrines of separation of powers and federalism.

In recent ahnjin, the transportation industry has undergone a fundamental transformation due to the proliferation of shipping containers. Standing alone, however, the existence of a unique federal interest is insufficient for finding a federal common law claim for relief.

Writing for the Illinois Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Douglass eloquently wrote about the development of common law:. What to do next?

Indemnity Ins. of North America v. Hanjin Shipping, 206 F. Supp. 2d 927 (N.D. Ill. 2002)

Neither Indemnity nor Hanjin develops or analyzes these factors. County of Lake, Ind. The question of whether a bill of lading is a through bill of lading is largely a question of fact.


The only facts the court are sure of is that delivery is a significant part of the performance of the contract, and that delivery was to occur in Indiana. The carrier’s duty is to make delivery to the final agreed to destination.

This case arose ladinv of the loss of a cargo of power tools that were shipped from China to the United States. ahnjin

Bill of Lading Tracking Hanjin Shipping Company

Ordinarily, a federal court applies fo choice of law rules of its forum state. Need help logging in? In the final analysis, the effect of state law on this case is more academic than practical.

Williamsport Area School Dist. Second, the inland carriage was substantial.

Customs Service informed Fritz Companies that the container and its contents would be subject to an intensive Customs examination upon arrival in Chicago. The court cannot exercise admiralty jurisdiction over losses that arise during laidng type of substantial inland carriage.

The court granted that motion from the bench for the reasons stated in open court. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry.

BL Tracking Hanjin Shipping Company : HJSC –

Undoubtedly, Congress has expressed its intent to have uniform federal laws governing the interstate transportation of goods, to the exclusion of inconsistent state law. The relationship between Lowe’s and Hanjin is a contractual agreement that does not fall under the Carmack Amendment.

Historical receiverships have seen cargo held for periods bilk three months. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Seventh Circuit permits federal common law claims for relief in limited circumstances: Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv.

The allegations fall under COGSA and the Carmack Amendment, so the court could not have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction from the face of the pleadings.

Therefore, the court must determine if there is a “unique federal interest” that justifies fashioning a judicial claim for relief.