Florida-Based King Ocean Services Sues Ameritrans Worldwide Logistics Over Unpaid Maritime Freight Charges
King Ocean Services Limited, Inc., a vessel operating common carrier with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, has filed a maritime breach of contract lawsuit against Ameritrans Worldwide Logistics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint, filed under Case No. 1:26-cv-21139-CMA, alleges that Ameritrans failed to pay for ocean freight and related maritime services provided between Florida and Guatemala during the 2025 shipping season.
Maritime Contract Dispute Arises Over Unpaid Ocean Freight and Related Shipping Charges to Guatemala
According to the legal filing, King Ocean Services entered into an agreement to transport various goods aboard its ocean vessels from Port Everglades, Florida, to ports in Guatemala. These shipments occurred between April 2025 and July 2025 at the specific request and direction of Ameritrans Worldwide Logistics. As a licensed and bonded non-vessel operating common carrier, Ameritrans was identified as the shipper on each of the bills of lading associated with these transactions. The plaintiff asserts that it fully performed its contractual obligations by successfully transporting and delivering the cargo to the named consignees in Guatemala, yet the defendant has failed to remit the earned compensation for these professional maritime services.
King Ocean Services Alleges Material Breach of Bill of Lading Terms and Conditions by Ameritrans
The lawsuit centers on the specific terms and conditions governing the ocean bills of lading issued by King Ocean. The complaint highlights that Ameritrans falls under the definition of a merchant as defined in the contract, which includes shippers and holders of the bill of lading. Under Paragraph 15 of these terms, a merchant is held jointly and severally liable to the carrier for all freight, demurrage, and other related charges. King Ocean alleges that by failing to pay the outstanding balance, Ameritrans committed a material breach of the maritime contract. Furthermore, the contract specifies that payments made to third parties like freight forwarders or brokers do not constitute payment to the carrier and are made at the payor’s sole risk.
Carrier Seeks Recovery of Over Ten Thousand Dollars in Damages and Attorney Fees in Federal Court
King Ocean Services is seeking a judgment for damages totaling $10,199.61, representing the unpaid ocean freight and related charges. In addition to the principal amount, the plaintiff is requesting pre-judgment interest and the recovery of attorney’s fees and court costs. The complaint notes that the bill of lading contract explicitly provides for the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred while collecting sums due to the carrier. This action was brought under the court’s admiralty and maritime jurisdiction pursuant to federal law, as it involves the enforcement of rights contained within maritime contracts for international cargo transportation.
Contact an Experienced Maritime Contract Lawyer Today if Your Business is Facing Shipping or Freight Disputes
Companies involved in the international transportation of goods must navigate complex maritime laws and contractual obligations. When a party fails to honor the terms of a bill of lading or refuses to pay earned freight and demurrage charges, it can cause significant financial disruption to vessel operators and logistics providers. If your company is dealing with a breach of maritime contract or requires assistance recovering unpaid shipping fees in the Southern District of Florida, our team is ready to provide the legal guidance you need. We understand the intricacies of admiralty law and the importance of protecting your commercial interests in the global supply chain.
Contact us now to speak with a maritime contract and freight dispute attorney.
Disclaimer: Our firm does not represent the plaintiff in this case and is not involved in the litigation. The information provided is a summary of allegations based on publicly available court filings. We make no representations about the truth of these allegations, are not commenting on the merits of the case, and are not predicting any outcome.
