As discussed in greater detail in Part III.B, the parties misinterpret the Court’s prior decision. 60 (“56.1 Counter-Stmt.”), at 1 Instead, both parties appear to take the position that the Court’s prior decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss resolved the question of whether the Global Shipping Contract applied to the shipment at issue here. Expeditors’ Response to Plaintiff’s Counter-Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Dkt. GE Healthcare delivered the cargo to EXPJapan in Narita, Japan. EXPJapan arranged for Nippon Cargo Airlines to transport the machine on one of Nippon’s planes. The Air Waybill for the shipment was issued by Expeditors Japan KK (“EXPJapan”), one of EIW’s subsidiaries. Although the parties agree that EIW and GE are parties to a “Global Air Freight Transportation Contract” (the “Global Contract”), which purports to bind GE’s affiliates, they have not provided the Court with any of the operative provisions of that contract or any evidence that the shipment at issue here was executed pursuant to that contract.

54 (“56.1 Stmt.”), at ¶ 4 Declaration of Norihiko Kishi, Dkt. Response to Defendant’s Rule 56.1 Statement and Counter-Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Dkt. In August 2016, GE Healthcare Japan Corporation (“GE Healthcare”) shipped a LightSpeed VCT CT scan machine from Tokyo, Japan to its affiliate, GE Medical, in Shanghai, China. Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are undisputed. BACKGROUND The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Because there are disputed issues of fact regarding the notice provided by GE Medical, EIW’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. EIW has moved for summary judgment, arguing that GE Medical failed to provide timely notices of claim as required by both the Montreal Convention and a global shipping contract between EIW and GE Medical’s parent company, General Electric Company (“GE”).

(“GE Medical”), during transit from Japan to China. (“EIW”) is liable for damage sustained by cargo shipped by IINA’s insured, GE Medical Systems Trade and Development (Shanghai) Co. WOODS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (“IINA”) brought this case under the Montreal Convention, claiming that Defendant Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. 62 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _ DATE FILED: 11/20/19 1:18-cv-07093-GHW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY H.

et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -X INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF : NORTH AMERICA A/S/O GE MEDICAL : : SYSTEMS TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT (SHANGHAI) CO., LTD., : : Plaintiff, : : -against: : EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF : WASHINGTON, INC., EXPEDITORS JAPAN : KK, and NIPPON CARGO AIRLINES, : : Defendants. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v.

Iina cargo