PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MAERSK LINE, LIMITED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 07-1013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge.
(2:05-cv-00747-RBS)
Argued: November 1, 2007
Decided: January 28, 2008
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and
James A. BEATY, Jr., Chief United States District Judge
for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in
which Judge Duncan and Judge Beaty joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Anne Lobell Murphy, Appellate Staff, Civil Division,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. John Early Holloway, HUNTON & WILLIAMS,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Peter D. Keisler, Assis-
tant Attorney General, Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney,
2 MAERSK LINE v. UNITED STATES
Robert Greenspan, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
OPINION
GREGORY, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Maersk Line, Limited ("Maersk") sued Defendant United
States of America ("United States") for breach of contract of carriage.
The underlying dispute is maritime in nature involving the application
of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA"), 46 U.S.C. § 30701
et seq., under the terms of the contract. After cross-motions for sum-
mary judgment, the district court granted Maersk’s motion for sum-
mary judgment and denied the United States’s motion for summary
judgment. On appeal, the United States contends the district court
erred in finding that the Halvorsen aircraft loader ("K-Loader") was
a package for purposes of the liability limitation provision under
COGSA which limits the carrier’s liability to $500 per package. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s decision.
I.
As the facts are straightforward, we adopt the statement of undis-
puted facts contained in the district court’s opinion. Maersk Line, Ltd.
v. United States, 460 F.Supp.2d 678, 679-680 (E.D. Va. 2006).
This controversy arose from the transport of seven K-Loaders1 by
Maersk from Charleston, South Carolina to Thumrait, Oman, pursu-
ant to a Universal Services Contract, DAMT01-03-D-0124 ("USC-
04"). The USC-04 is a standard form contract that the Military Sur-
face Deployment and Distribution Command ("SDDC"), on behalf of
the United States, offers to some fifteen carriers, including Maersk.
Under the USC-04, various Department of Defense agencies may
coordinate with the SDDC to ship cargo overseas.
1
The Halvorsen aircraft loader ("K-Loader") is a large wheeled vehicle
with an adjustable deck that is used to load cargo onto aircrafts. Each K-
Loader weighs over 30,000 pounds and can lift up to 25,000 pounds of
cargo.
MAERSK LINE v. UNITED STATES 3
On April 30, 2003, the SDDC offered the movement of the seven
K-loaders from Charleston, South Carolina to Thumrait, Oman.
Maersk accepted the booking on May 1, 2003. The booking was
accomplished over the Internet through an electronic data interchange
system called the Integrated Booking System ("IBS"). Pursuant to
Clause 4.1.8 of the USC-04, the parties’ contract consisted of the fol-
lowing documents in order of priority: (1) the USC-04; (2) the Trans-
portation Control and Movement Document ("TCMD") and other
shipping instructions; and (3) booking documents. The TCMD, issued
by the SDDC, provided shipping instructions and was the only docu-
ment received by Maersk that provided such instructions. The book-
ing documents set the applicable freight rates, terms, and conditions
for a particular shipment. Clause 3.1 of the USC-04 expressly incor-
porates COGSA into the parties’ contract.
The K-Loaders were delivered to Maersk at Charleston, South Car-
olina on April 28 and 29, 2003. Either Maersk or its agents, employ-
ees, or contractors loaded each K-Loader onto a flat rack in
preparation for ocean shipment. On May 16, 2003, the K-Loaders
were loaded onto the MAERSK MISSOURI, which departed Charles-
ton, South Carolina that same day and arrived in Salalah, Oman, on
May 22, 2003. The K-Loaders were then transported by truck to
Thumrait, Oman. Maersk did not provide a bill of lading to the SDDC
until October 21, 2004.
One of the K-Loaders affixed to a flat rack sustained damages dur-
ing the ocean voyage to Oman, and cost $31,279.60 to repair. The
SDDC contacted Maersk regarding the damages during the summer
of 2003. Maersk acknowledged the claim but asserted, in a letter
dated August 20, 2003, that its total liability was limited to $500 per
K-Loader pursuant to COGSA. The SDDC demanded payment of the
full cost of repairs. On December 21, 2004, an SDDC contracting
officer issued a "final decision," stating (1) that the K-Loaders were
not "shipped in packages" within the meaning of COGSA, and (2)
that the $500 limitation on liability under COGSA should, therefore,
apply per measurement ton of cargo. Accordingly, the SDDC con-
tracting officer calculated Maersk’s liability as $26,312.50 (56.625
tons x $ 500.00 per measurement ton). The SDDC subsequently offset
$26,359.30 (the original $26,312.50 plus $46.80 in interest) against
amounts due to Maersk.
4 MAERSK LINE v. UNITED STATES
On December 21, 2005, Maersk filed a complaint against the
United States, alleging that the United States’s offset was "wrongful
and/or a breach of contract." The parties filed cross-motions for sum-
mary judgment, and agreed that the case should be decided on sum-
mary judgment because no material facts were in dispute.
The district court concluded as a matter of law that the K-Loader
was a COGSA package. The district court believed the K-Loader fell
within the broad definition of the term "package" which the district
court believed we had adopted in Caterpillar Overseas, S.A. v.
Marine Transport, Inc., 900 F.2d 714 (4th Cir. 1990). The district
court also found that an examination of the parties’ contract revealed
that the parties intended the K-Loader to constitute a package. The
district court then denied the United States’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and granted Maersk’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The
United States timely appealed.
II.
Because summary judgment was clearly appropriate in this case,
our review is limited to the district court’s application of the law to
the undisputed facts. We apply de novo review to the district court’s
legal determinations and clear error review for any inferences it drew
from the underlying undisputed facts. Int’l Bancorp, LLC v. Societe
des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d
359, 362-63 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 577 (2004); Yazzie
v. Olney, Levy, Kaplan & Tenner, 593 F.2d 100, 102 (9th Cir. 1979).
III.
Congress enacted COGSA in 1936 to help balance the interests of
carriers and shippers by setting a limit to the liability which a carrier
could contract away at a level which would discourage negligence or
indifference on the carrier’s part, yet provide reasonable protection to
shippers. COGSA applies "to all contracts for carriage of goods by
sea to or from ports of the United States in foreign trade." 46 U.S.C.
§ 30701(13). Section 4 of COGSA, in pertinent part, reads:
Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or
become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection
MAERSK LINE v. UNITED STATES 5
with the transportation of goods in an amount exceeding
$500 per package lawful money of the United States, or in
case of goods not shipped in packages, per customary
freight unit, or the equivalent of that sum in other currency,
unless the nature and value of such goods have been
declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the
bill of lading.
By agreement between the carrier, master, or agent of the
carrier, and the shipper another maximum amount than that
mentioned in this paragraph may be fixed: Provided, That
such maximum shall not be less than the figure above
named. In no event shall the carrier be liable for more than
the amount of damage actually sustained.
Id. at § 30701(4)(5).
Congress failed to define the term "package", and left no clues in
either the statute itself or in any of the legislative history to help
courts interpret the term. The Second Circuit defines package as "a
class of cargo, irrespective of size, shape or weight, to which some
packaging preparation for transportation has been made which facili-
tates handling, but which does not necessarily conceal or completely
enclose the goods." Aluminios Pozuelo Limited v. S. S. Navigator, 407
F.2d 152, 155 (2d Cir. 1968). This definition comports with the plain
and ordinary meaning of the term.2 In dicta in Caterpillar Overseas,
S.A. v. Marine Transport Inc., 900 F.2d 714, 722 (4th Cir. 1990), we
2
If Congress intended that the term package have a technical defini-
tion, Congress could have assigned one but did not. "Legislation when
not expressed in technical terms is addressed to the common run of men
and is therefore to be understood according to the sense of the thing, as
the ordinary man has a right to rely on ordinary words addressed to him."
Hartford v. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., 491 F.2d 960,
963 (9th Cir. 1974) (quoting Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc.,
322 U.S. 607, 618(1944)). Since no specialized or technical meaning was
ascribed to the word package, we must assume that Congress had none
in mind and thus intended that this word be given its plain, ordinary
meaning. Id. (citing Malat v. Riddell, 383 U.S. 569, 571 (1966); See gen-
erally 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction at 455-473 (7th ed. 2007).
6 MAERSK LINE v. UNITED STATES
observed that we found the Second Circuit’s definition to be the best.
We now as part of our holding in this case adopt the Second Circuit’s
definition.
The focus of our inquiry here then is the extent of preparation made
to facilitate handling of the K-Loader. Maersk was not expected to
drive the vehicle on or off the carrier, so the United States discon-
nected the battery, drained the fuel tank, placed a fire extinguisher
inside, then left the K-Loader at the dock. Maersk then placed the K-
Loader on a flat rack to facilitate lifting the K-Loader onto the ship.
Thus, the only preparation done to facilitate handling was placing the
K-Loader on a flat rack.
Clearly, whether the unit was placed on a flat rack cannot be dispo-
sitive because to do so would allow carriers, such as Maersk, to uni-
laterally convert cargo into packages to limit their own liability.
However, under the facts of this case it seems this preparation was
made because this was the only method for getting the K-Loader onto
the ship. Maersk argues that both parties intended that the K-Loader
be placed on a flat rack. While the United States argues that it did not
intend that the K-Loader would be placed on a flat rack, it concedes
that it knew and understood that this was the only way for Maersk to
realistically lift the immobilized K-Loader onto the ship. Hence, as
there is a dispute over the parties’ intent, we must look to the parties’
actions to settle the issue.
Language in the parties’ contractual documents (i.e. the USC-04,
the TCMD and booking documents) and the bill of lading indicate
that the United States considered the K-Loader to be a package and
that the United States also understood that some preparation for trans-
portation to facilitate commercial handling would be required whether
it was made by or for the United States. The TCMD provides a single
Transportation Control Number ("TCN") for each K-Loader. Column
9 of the TCMD describes the K-Loader as "9. Pack Ve." It is undis-
puted that Pack refers to "package," while VE refers to "vehicle."
Maersk, 460 F.Supp.2d at 681. Column 39 of the TCMD similarly
refers to the K-Loader as "Type PACK VE," meaning "Type of Pack-
age: Vehicle." In the booking documents, each K-Loader is desig-
nated by its respective TCN. The K-Loader is referred to under the
heading "Commodity Cd: 891 - Vehicles for Airfield Terminal," as
MAERSK LINE v. UNITED STATES 7
"Package Cd: VE-Vehicle." Id. In the remarks section of the booking
documents, the SDDC stated "UNIT PACKAGED TO PREVENT
DRIVING ON-OFF VESSEL." Id. Although the bill of lading issued
for shipment was not part of the contract of carriage, it uses headings
that refer to "Kind of Packages" and "No. of Containers or Pkgs." Id.
The bill of lading also states "1 LOADER PER FLATRACK," osten-
sibly meaning one K-Loader per flat rack.
The United States argues that we should ignore the references to
"package" in these other documents, but in contractual disputes every
word is important. See, e.g., Supreme Council American Legion v.
Gootee, 89 F. 941 (4th Cir. 1898) (stating "great weight should be
given in every case to the particular words of the contract to be con-
strued"). The basic contract law principle contra proferentem coun-
sels that we construe any ambiguities in the contract against its
draftsman. See, e.g., Carolina Care Plan Inc. v. McKenzie, 467 F.3d
383, 389 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating "[a]mbiguity imposes costs on the
parties to a contract: one party may rely on an errant interpretation,
or find its original intent flouted if a dispute arises. Contra profer-
entem shifts the cost of ambiguity to the party best positioned to avoid
and bear it . . ."). Thus, to the extent there is ambiguity in the meaning
of these references to the term "package" in the other parts of the con-
tract, we are compelled to construe the words against the United
States.
The United States also argues that this interpretation of the TCMD
and Booking documents conflicts with the USC-04, which has prior-
ity over the other contractual documents. This is correct. The USC-04
does take priority over the other contractual documents when there is
a conflict. However, no conflict exists between the USC-04 and these
other documents. Although containing a definition section, the USC-
04 does not define the term "package" and because it is silent on this
issue, this Court is free to look to the other contractual documents.
We are unpersuaded by the United States’s argument that the price
paid for shipping the K-Loader or the fact that Maersk did not charge
the United States for the flat rack should dictate whether the parties
considered the K-Loader a package. The mere fact that Maersk
offered a discount to the United States does not impact the issue of
8 MAERSK LINE v. UNITED STATES
whether the K-Loader is a package for purposes of the COGSA liabil-
ity limitation.
We also note that under COGSA the United States could have
avoided the $500 per package limitation altogether by either (1)
declaring the nature and value of the shipment at the outset or (2)
negotiating with Maersk beforehand to provide a higher maximum
amount of liability up to the amount of actual damage sustained.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision.
AFFIRMED