Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 4:03:21 GMT -5
The 4th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice confirmed the decision of the Court of Justice of São Paulo (TJ-SP) that removed the tariff compensation provided for in the Montreal Convention and recognized an insurer's right to be fully compensated for damage to the cargo insured during air transport.
reproductionA parcel company and an air carrier appealed to the STJ against the TJ-SP ruling. Initially, the appeal was granted, in a monocratic decision, to recognize the application of the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions to the case, with a determination to return the case to the originating instance for a new ruling.
In the internal appeal presented to the 4th Panel, the insurance company, which subrogated itself to the rights of the company that owned the cargo, claimed that the controversy does not concern the loss of baggage in international air transport, but damage in air cargo transport, and that the carrier was found to be at fault for the damage to the goods.
Special statement
The rapporteur, minister Luis Portugal Mobile Number List Felipe Salomão, explained that the prevailing understanding in the STJ is in accordance with article 22, paragraph 3, of the Montreal Convention, which limits the transporter's liability in the event of destruction, loss, damage or delay of the cargo — unless the consignor, when delivering the goods to the carrier, has made a special declaration of value and paid an additional amount, when applicable.
"In effect, the transnational diploma does not impose a forced tariff, but allows the consignor of the goods to submit to it, if he does not choose to make a special declaration — which, as a rule, involves paying an additional amount", he stated.
Review of evidence
According to the minister, the TJ-SP, when analyzing the evidence in the process, concluded that the value of the damaged goods was declared, as it appeared on the commercial invoice mentioned in the bill of lading. Compensation for the damages suffered by the insured and the consequent subrogation of the insurer's rights was proven.
"Changing the understanding of the appealed ruling would necessarily require a re-examination of the facts and evidence in the case file, which is prohibited in a special appeal, due to the obstacle in Precedent 7 of the STJ", concluded Salomão.
By unanimously granting the internal appeal to reconsider previous decisions, the panel dismissed the special appeal filed by the parcel company and the airline. With information from the press office of the Superior Court of Justice.