In the description of this case we have modified the name of the
parties, their nationality and other details that could allow to identify the
case, in order to protect the identity of all the participants. Therefore the
names of the companies and nationalities are fictitious. Our insured party is
called  ”FXX Logistics”

BACKGROUND

A company from Ecuador sells soft gels for medicinal use to a Swiss company. It
sends the goods to its Argentine subsidiary located in the province of Buenos
Aires. MLT Logistics, the company from Ecuador, then hires the export services
of FXX Logistics to carry the goods by air from Buenos Aires airport to Geneva
airport.

The importer claimed that the goods arrived in very bad condition due to
excess temperature and had to be destroyed at destination. RL, the insurer of
the cargo (hired by MLT Logistics), compensated the insured party for the
alleged loss.

TRIAL: “RL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. FXX LOGISTICS of ARGENTINA: BREACH OF
CONTRACT”

April 2010

In an attempt to recover the compensation it had paid, RL insurance
company filed a complaint against FXX Logistics for US$ 410.000, plus interests
and legal costs.

On the other hand, FXX LOGISTICS mentioned his Liability insurance
policy as warranty and TT AIRLINES as third party. As FXX LOGISTICS ´s insurer
we took on his legal defense.

April 2014

We obtained a favorable first instance ruling. It means the judge rejected RL
Insurance Company´s recovery claim and ordered the applicant to pay the costs.
The claimant appealed the ruling.

September 2015

The second instance sentence confirmed the first one, ordering the applicant to
pay the costs of both instances.

Therefore, after defending the interests of our insured party in court
for 5 years, actively participating in all its instances and bearing all the
costs, we have secured a sentence that holds our insured party harmless.

 THE DEFENCE CASE:

1)    FXX LOGISTICS issues a HAWB and the goods
are unloaded at Geneva airport with no observations, as stated in the report of
the surveyor hired by the claimant. The land carriage from the airport to the
importer´s facilities  was also hired by
the claimant. FXX LOGISTICS was not in charge of a door-to-door transport , his
obligations concluded when the goods were unloaded at the Swiss airport.

2)    The importer was satisfied when he
received the goods at his warehouse. Four months later MLT Logistics sent FXX
LOGISTICS a letter of complaint stating that the goods were damaged allegedly
because they were exposed to high temperatures. As the letter was submitted
late the claim was no longer valid.  Also
it raises doubts as to the origin of the alleged damage due to an incorrect
handling of the product in the consignee´s facilities.

3)    FXX LOGISTICS was not informed of the
existence of thermographs, as argued by the RL insurance company. In addition,
the surveyor summoned by the claimant verified the goods 3 months after their
reception, failing to notify FXX LOGISTICS or inviting them to participate. The
cargo was also destroyed unilaterally. Being unilateral the evidence lacks
objectivity, it is insufficient to demonstrate the damage and cannot be opposed
to FXX LOGISTICS.

4)    The goods were carried with inadequate
packaging and the exporter did not hire a special service for temperature
control. The exporter was in charge of the conditioning, consolidation and
packaging of the goods but did not notify or request the intervention of FXX
LOGISTICS, so they cannot be held responsible.

OUR CONCLUSION: The claimant is unable to prove
the facts or damages stated in his claim.