You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Beam Radio, Inc. v. Cielos de Peru, S.A.

Citations: 831 So. 2d 812; 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 18114; 2002 WL 31757452Docket: No. 3D01-3134

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 10, 2002; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a dispute concerning the seizure of communications equipment shipped to Peru, Beam Radio, Inc. sought to reverse a final summary judgment regarding liability limitations. Beam, a manufacturer, engaged Miami International Forwarders (MIF) to ship goods to a Peruvian customer using the airline Cielos de Peru, S.A. Upon arrival, Peruvian customs seized the goods due to non-compliance with local disclosure laws. Beam sued MIF and Cielos for the value of the goods, amounting to $44,000. The defendants argued for a liability cap under the Warsaw Convention, which the court found inapplicable between the U.S. and Peru. However, the court upheld the air way bill's liability limitation, ruling that the goods were 'lost' due to customs seizure, thus limiting Beam's recovery to $11,830. The court's interpretation of 'lost' encompassed goods seized and no longer in possession of the shippers, affirming the summary judgment and validating the limitation clause in the air way bill.

Legal Issues Addressed

Inapplicability of the Warsaw Convention

Application: The court determined that the Warsaw Convention did not apply to the transaction between the United States and Peru, focusing instead on the air way bill.

Reasoning: The trial court determined that the Convention was not applicable between the United States and Peru, but found that the air way bill's limitation of liability for “lost” goods was enforceable.

Interpretation of 'Lost' Goods in Shipping Contracts

Application: The court interpreted the term 'lost' to include goods seized by customs, as they were no longer in the possession of the shipping parties.

Reasoning: The court disagreed, interpreting “lost” more broadly to mean that the goods were no longer possessed by the parties due to the seizure.

Limitation of Liability in Air Way Bills

Application: The court upheld the limitation of liability clause in the air way bill, capping the recovery for seized goods despite the goods' known location.

Reasoning: The court ruled that the goods were effectively “lost” due to the seizure by customs, thus capping Beam's recovery at $11,830.