From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Formosa Plastics Corporation v. Sturge

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jun 13, 1988
848 F.2d 390 (2d Cir. 1988)

Opinion

Nos. 1010, 1148, Dockets 88-7063, 88-7093.

Argued May 20, 1988.

Decided June 13, 1988.

Symmers, Fish Warner, New York City, for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.

Chester D. Hooper, New York City (Anthony J. Gaspich, Haight, Gardner, Poor Havens, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees, cross-appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern of New York.

Before MESKILL and WINTER, circuit Judges, and STEWART, District Judge.

Honorable Charles E. Stewart, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.


This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Bernard Newman, J., of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation, awarding damages of $581,595.56 to plaintiffs-appellees Formosa Plastics Corp. (U.S.A.) and Formosa Plastics Corp. (Taiwan) in an action for breach of a marine insurance policy.

Defendant-appellant Arthur Collwyn Sturge (Sturge) contends that the district court's findings of fact concerning the damage to the shipments of ethylene dichloride during ocean carriage are clearly erroneous; we disagree. As to Sturge's claim concerning the "Bailee Clause" of the marine insurance policy, we conclude that this claim is also without merit, substantially for the reasons set out in Judge Newman's opinion below, 684 F.Supp. 359 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).

We therefore affirm.


Summaries of

Formosa Plastics Corporation v. Sturge

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jun 13, 1988
848 F.2d 390 (2d Cir. 1988)
Case details for

Formosa Plastics Corporation v. Sturge

Case Details

Full title:FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION (U.S.A.) AND FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jun 13, 1988

Citations

848 F.2d 390 (2d Cir. 1988)