The plaintiff, a trucking broker, sought summary judgment against two defendant carriers for damages arising from the theft of a poultry shipment, including the value of the goods and significant customs duties levied due to the theft occurring in Canada.
The defendants denied liability, citing lack of notice and unforeseeable damages.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that the factual matrix, including conflicting evidence on sub-brokering authorization, untested expert opinions, and unresolved issues regarding notice of claim under the Carriage of Goods Regulation, was not suitable for disposition under Rule 76 simplified procedure.
The matter was directed to proceed to trial.
