What happened: Liberty Mutual alleges a shipment of guar gum powder was damaged during ocean transit from India to New York
Who's involved: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company
What's at stake: US $43,008.55 in claimed damages
Why it matters: A major insurer recovering against the world's largest container line over a straightforward cargo damage claim
Where it stands: Complaint filed September 26, 2026, in the Southern District of New York
Seven hundred and twenty bags of guar gum powder left the port of Mundra, India, aboard the MSC Floriana. By the time the shipment reached New York, something had gone wrong.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company has filed a federal lawsuit against MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company in the Southern District of New York, alleging the global container carrier is responsible for physical damage to the cargo. The insurer is chasing US $43,008.55.
The shipment, consigned to Ampak Company, moved under sea waybill MEDUKD401205, loaded into container MSBU2687408. According to the complaint, the goods were in good order and condition when handed to MSC for carriage. A clean waybill was issued on September 13, 2025 - meaning the carrier accepted the cargo without noting any pre-existing damage.
What happened between loading and arrival is not detailed in the filing. The complaint pleads that the shipment either never made it to its destination or arrived in damaged condition. Schedule A narrows that somewhat: it lists the nature of loss as physical damage.
Liberty Mutual says it paid Ampak's claim and is now stepping into Ampak's shoes through subrogation - the standard process where an insurer that has already paid out takes over the policyholder's right to recover from the party responsible for the loss.
The complaint runs four causes of action, but the gist is simple: MSC took the cargo in good condition and either did not deliver it or did not deliver it intact.
The first two claims invoke federal maritime statutes that govern international ocean shipping to US ports - the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and, as a backup, the older Harter Act. The third alleges the carrier broke its contract. The fourth says MSC had custody of the goods and failed to return them in the condition it received them.
Stacking multiple theories like this is standard practice in marine cargo cases. Which statute controls can depend on the specific terms of the waybill and where in the journey the damage happened, so plaintiffs cover their bases.
The dollar figure is modest by marine cargo standards. But the matchup is not. Liberty Mutual is the seventh-largest property and casualty insurer in the US. MSC is the world's largest container shipping line, operating a fleet of more than 1,000 vessels. A subrogation recovery action between two companies of that scale, even over a relatively small claim, is the kind of case cargo claims teams track because it can produce useful precedent on carrier liability and the standards applied to damaged-goods disputes under federal maritime law.
The complaint does not detail the cause or extent of the physical damage to the guar gum powder, and no documents beyond the complaint and Schedule A are included in the filing reviewed.
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested, and no court has ruled on the merits.
