A $250,000 cargo dispute between HDI Global Insurance Company and UPS Supply Chain Solutions is now playing out in a Texas federal court.
On August 14, 2025, HDI Global Insurance Company filed a lawsuit against UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case centers on a shipment of medical sterilization products - including equipment, systems, and related software - that was transported by air from Mira Loma, California, to Sydney, Australia, in August 2023. According to the complaint, HDI says the cargo was delivered to UPS in good order and condition on or about August 4, 2023. When the shipment arrived at Sydney Airport on or about August 14, 2023, HDI claims it was in damaged condition.
HDI states it insured the shipment and, after the damage was discovered, paid a claim to its insured. The insurer now seeks to recover $250,000 from UPS, asserting that UPS was responsible for the shipment’s condition throughout the transport. The complaint cites the Montreal Convention, which governs international air carriage, as the legal basis for the claim.
HDI alleges it performed all obligations and conditions required before bringing the suit, including payment of freight and timely written notice to UPS about the loss, as outlined in Article 31 of the Montreal Convention. The insurer claims that, by paying the insurance claim, it became subrogated to the rights of its insured and is entitled to pursue UPS for the alleged loss or damage.
The complaint does not specify the exact language of the insurance policy but states that HDI paid its insured for the loss or damage to the shipment under a policy in effect at the time. HDI asserts that it is bringing the action on its own behalf and on behalf of all parties interested in the cargo.
At this stage, the case is based solely on the claims made by HDI in its complaint. UPS has not yet responded in court, and there is no final decision. All statements regarding UPS’s conduct and HDI’s entitlement to recovery reflect the insurer’s position as stated in the filed complaint.
For insurance professionals, the case highlights the realities of subrogation and the challenges of managing international cargo claims. With the dispute now before the court, the outcome may provide further clarity on carrier responsibilities and insurer rights under international conventions. For now, the industry will be watching to see how the court weighs the claims and defenses in this cross-border cargo dispute.
