MAN Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili (2012)

But historically, we have held that “[m]ixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo.” Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili, 704 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 2012).

“The question of who owns a given item of . . . property is a mixed question of law and fact,” New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc. v. Meyers, 442 F.3d 101, 111 (2d Cir. 2006), which we review de novo, see Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili, 704 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 2012). 2.

The application of law to undisputed facts is also subject to de novo review, Deegan v. City of Ithaca, 444 F.3d 135, 141 (2d Cir.2006), as are mixed questions of law and fact, Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili, 704 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir.2012).

The application of law to undisputed facts is also subject to de novo 11 review, Deegan v. City of Ithaca, 444 F.3d 135, 141 (2d Cir. 2006), as are mixed 12 questions of law and fact, Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili, 704 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 13 2012). 14 To the extent that Beck also appeals from the district courtʹs dismissal of its 15 first amended complaint, we review that summary judgment award de novo, 16 ʺconstruing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non‐…

Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili, 704 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2012). 3 its liability but could rely on its own BOL’s limiting provision, (2) the BOLs’ liability limitation provisions are valid under the Harter Act and (3) each Rotaflex Machine is a “package” for the purpose of the liability limitation provisions.

See 467 F.3d at 824 ; see also Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili, 704 F.3d 77, 84 (2d Cir. 2012) (“[W]hen the bill of lading is negotiated to a good faith third party, which did not occur here, the bill governs the third party’s rights.”); Fortis Corp. Ins., S.A. v. Viken Ship Management A.S., 481 F. Supp. 2d 862, 867 (N.D.

See Alom v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 708, 712 (2nd Cir. 2018); Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili, 704 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 2012).

Similarly, and relevant to the case here, “COGSA assumes the existence of the in rem proceeding rather than creates it.” Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akil i 704 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2012).

See Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili , 704 F.3d 77 , 83 (2d Cir. 2012) ; see also Pioneer Import Corp. v. Lafcomo , 49 F.Supp. 559 , 561-62 (S.D.N.Y. 1943), aff'd , 138 F.2d 907 (2d Cir. 1943) ("A lien against the ship arises for damage to cargo caused by improper storage.").

See Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili, 704 F.3d 77 , 82 n.4 (2d Cir. 2012).

Mar., Inc. v. Descatrade SA , 620 F.3d 70 , 74 (2d Cir. 2010) ; see Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili , 704 F.3d 77 , 82 (2d Cir. 2012).

In order for a bailment to arise, “there must be a full transfer of property so as to exclude the possession of the ownér and all other persons and give to bailee sole custody and control thereof.” Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 619 F.Supp. 1406, 1425 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili, 704 F.3d 77, 88 (2d Cir. 2012) (a “bailment does not arise unless delivery to the bailee is complete …

Ill, § (8) (emphasis added); see also Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili, 704 F.3d 77, 86 (2d Cir. 2012) (noting that the Hague-Visby Rules prohibit waiver of in rem liability).