Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance v. The Vessel "Gladiolus" (1985)
green
· 65 citation events
across 14 courts.
Showing the 25 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198620062026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Akiyama Corp. of America v. M.V. Hanjin Marseilles (1998)
Co. v. Vessel Gladiolus, 762 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir.1985).
green
Mazda Motors of America, Inc. v. M/V COUGAR ACE (2009)
Co. v. Vessel Gladiolus, 762 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1985)).
green
Kvaerner E & C v. Yellow Freight System, Inc. (2005)
Co. v. The Vessel Gladiolus, 762 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Cir.1985).
green
Hale Container v. Houston Sea (1998)
Gerber & Co., 828 F.Supp. at 460 . 14 issued “for the master;” (3) no contractual relationship existed which absolved the ship and its owner from liability for the cargo.27 The COGSA defenses and protections may be extended to the carrier’s agents and contractors by an express provision, a “Himalaya clause,” in the bill of lading.28 In considering the COGSA limitation of liability, this court construes Himalaya clauses strictly limiting their application to the intended bene…
whether an entity is the intended beneficiary of a Himalaya clause is determined by the contractual relationship between the entity and the carrier, and the natures of services performed compared with the carrier’s responsibilities
green
Hale Container Line, Inc. v. Houston Sea Packing Co. (1998)
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds’ v. Barber Blue Sea Line, 675 F.2d 266, 269 (11th Cir.1982); Generali v. D'Amico, 766 F.2d 485, 487-488 (11th Cir.1985); Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Vessel "Gladiolus", 762 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1985) (whether an entity is the intended beneficiary of a Himalaya clause is determined by the contractual relationship between the entity and the carrier, and the natures of services performed compared with the carrier’s responsibili…
green
Ceramic Corp. of America v. Inka Maritime Corp. (1997)
Co. v. The Gladiolus, 762 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir.1985) (statute of limitations); see also Grace Line, 500 F.2d at 373 (distinguishing between limitations on liability, which may validly be extended in Himalaya Clauses, and exemption from negligence liability, which may not be so extended). 12 Because the Himalaya Clause in this case is void as against public policy, the district court clearly erred in concluding that NSB was contractually entitled to COGSA defenses.
green
Caterpillar, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Columbus Line, Inc., a Corporation the Atchison Topeka and Santa… (1994)
Co. v. The Vessel GLADIOLUS, 762 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir.1985).
Co. v. Vessel "Gladiolus", 762 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1985). 7 AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3
green
Wemhoener Pressen v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. (1993)
Co. v. The Vessel "Gladiolus”, 762 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1985)).
green
Mori Seiki Usa, Inc. v. M.V. Alligator Triumph (1993)
Co., Ltd. v. Vessel Gladiolus, 762 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir.1985).
green
Caterpillar Overseas, S.A. v. Marine Transport Inc., Farrell Lines, Inc. Virginia International Terminals, In… (1990)
Co. v. The Vessel "Gladiolus", 762 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1985), states that in determining the meaning of the term independent contractor in the application of the "Himalaya" clause the court is to take into consideration "the nature of the services performed compared to the carrier's responsibilities under the carriage contract"; and that if the independent contractor is performing a non-maritime service, that is another factor to be given weight in ascertaining whether …
green
Caterpillar Overseas, S.A. v. Marine Transport Inc. (1990)
Co. v. The Vessel “Gladiolus”, 762 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1985), states that in determining the meaning of the term independent contractor in the application of the “Himalaya” clause the court is to take into consideration “the nature of the services performed compared to the carrier’s responsibilities under the carriage contract”; and that if the independent contractor is performing a non-maritime service, that is another factor to be given weight in ascertaining whether …
green
Institute of London Underwriters and Ferguson and Company v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., and Container Stevedorin… (1989)
Co. v. Vessel GLADIOLUS, 762 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1985) ("[In Tessler Bros.,] [w]e reasoned that the parties' use of the more inclusive term ['independent contractors'] evidenced their intent to extend coverage to stevedores.").
Co. v. Vessel GLADIOLUS, 762 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1985) (“[In Tessler Bros.,] [w]e reasoned that the parties’ use of the more inclusive term [‘independent contractors’] evidenced their intent to extend coverage to stevedores.”).
In a case decided after the district court dismissed this action, however, we concluded that “the formal requirement that the written communication inform the carrier that it is being held responsible for the damage may be relaxed when the carrier is given written notice of the fact of damage, has conducted a full inquiry, and is aware, through other communications, that reimbursement will be sought.” Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance Co. v. The Vessel “Gladiolus”, 762 F.2d 136…
green
Insurance Co. of North America v. G.I. Trucking Co. (1991)
Co. v. Vessel Gladiolus, 762 F.2d 1364, 1369 (9th Cir.1985); Pathway Bellows, Inc. v. Blanchette, 630 F.2d 900 (2d Cir.1980), cert. den. 450 U.S. 915 , 101 S.Ct. 1357 , 67 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981).
green
Tesmer v. Allied Van Lines, Inc. (2000)
Co. v. Vessel Gladiolus, 762 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Cir.1985)).
green
Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Kaisha (1997)
Co., Ltd. v. Vessel Gladiolus, 762 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir.1985).
green
Canon USA, Inc. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (1996)
Co., Ltd. v. The Vessel “Gladiolus,” 762 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir. 1985) (clause provided limitation of liability protection to “all servants, agents and independent contractors used or employed by the Carrier_”); Toyomenka, Inc. v. S.S.
clause provided limitation of liability protection to “all servants, agents and independent contractors used or employed by the Carrier_”
green
Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance v. Maersk Line, Inc. (1992)
Co. v. The Vessel “Gladiolus”, 762 F.2d 1364, 1366-67 (9th Cir.1985) and Barretto Peat, Inc. v. Luis Ayala Colon Suers., Inc., 896 F.2d 656, 660 (1st Cir.1990).
green
Almacen Boyaca Cia. Ltda. v. Gran Golfo Express (1991)
Co. v. The Vessel “Gladiolus”, 762 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1985).
green
Booth v. United Van Lines, Inc. (1990)
Taisho, 762 F.2d at 1368.
See Taisho, 762 F.2d at 1368 . 4 .
See Taisho Marine & Fire Ins., Co. v. Vessel Gladiolus, 762 F.2d 1364, 1366-67 (9th Cir.1985).
See Culver v. Boat Transit, Inc., 782 F. 2d 1467, 1469 (9th Cir.1986) (requirement under ICA that claim of damage to freight be formalized may be relaxed where there is a written notice of damage, “coupled with a clearly communicated intent to hold the carrier liable, plus the carrier’s investigation”); see also Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance Co. v. The Vessel “Gladiolus”, 762 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Cir.1985) (“the formal requirement that the written communication inform the c…