This is the reasoning of the re-insurers: No one had expected manmade catastrophes to be of the order of magnitude of the 911 losses. Indeed, marine insurers had an idea that $4 billion was just about the largest claim they could ever imagine. That’s until WTC (owned by freeholders Port of NY/NJ) saw the re-insurers raising estimates which aggregated into some $30-40 billion once you added in all the business interruption liabilities, life covers, increased costs of working, aviation hulls, key personnel and all the other interests protected in our highly concentrated postmodern, urban, information-driven lives.
The bill of lading issued by the vessel operator likewise included a Himalaya Clause. The vessel operator contracted with a railroad company for carriage of the cargo from Savannah to Huntsville. En route, the train derailed and the cargo was damaged. The shipper brought suit against the railroad, among others. The railroad contended that its liability was limited under COGSA by means of the Himalaya Clauses. The trial court agreed with the railroad, but this was overturned by the appellate court, which held that there was no privity of contract between the shipper and the railroad as required by state law. On review, the US Supreme Court ruled that the contract was maritime in nature and the need for a uniform maritime approach is not affected by the fact that this damage was incurred during the inland portion of the transit. This has the effect of importing maritime limitations of liability into all kinds of contracts of carriage in the United States, so that stevedores and terminals with inland freight stations can rely on the same rights as the ocean carriers and escape higher standards of liability. The case, like the Himalaya Clauses themselves, is a boon to carriers and stevedores alike.