Florida Company Sues King Ocean Services After Perishable Produce Spoils Inside Malfunctioning Refrigerated Cargo Containers

TransCargo Tampa LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Florida, has filed a maritime breach of contract and negligence lawsuit against King Ocean Services Limited Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit, filed under Case No. 1:26-cv-23593-KMW, alleges that the cargo carrier failed to maintain proper temperatures inside its shipping containers, resulting in the total loss of a massive shipment of imported plantains.

Cargo Owner Suffers Total Loss of Plantain Shipment Due to Mechanical Failures of Marine Refrigerated Containers

According to the complaint, TransCargo is primarily engaged in the business of importing wholesale produce from South American nations for resale within the United States. The dispute centers around two separate shipments of palletized plantains totaling 2,160 boxes transported from Guatemala to Orlando, Florida. TransCargo loaded the first batch of 1,080 boxes on or about July 3, 2025, under King Ocean bill of lading KOSLGUAPEV33936. A second batch containing an identical quantity of 1,080 boxes was shipped on or about July 10, 2025, under bill of lading KOSLGUAPEV33969. Both bills of lading explicitly dictated that the perishable goods were to be carried in specialized refrigerated containers, commonly known as reefer containers, set to a specifically identified temperature to prevent premature ripening and decay during the ocean transit.

King Ocean Accused of Failing to Maintain Required Transit Temperatures for Perishable Agricultural Cargo

The lawsuit alleges that King Ocean failed to live up to its operational and contractual obligations as a common carrier. Upon the arrival of the first cargo container in Orlando on or about July 11, 2025, TransCargo discovered that the entire batch of plantains had severely overripened and spoiled. A review of the internal temperature recordings data logged during transit revealed that the container was consistently held at a temperature far exceeding the required threshold specified in the initial contract. The plaintiff promptly notified the ocean carrier of the decayed state of the goods delivered under the first bill of lading. The cargo from the second container suffered an identical fate when it was discharged in July 2025. TransCargo again noted extensive quality defects throughout the shipment, prompting further formal notifications to the carrier regarding the damaged freight.

United States Department of Agriculture Inspection Confirms Complete Spoilage and Decay of Imported Produce

The severity of the cargo damage was verified by federal authorities shortly after the shipment arrived in Florida. On or about July 14, 2025, inspectors from the United States Department of Agriculture conducted an official review of the plantains transported under the second bill of lading. The federal inspection revealed that 100 percent of the examined plantains suffered from extreme quality defects, including advanced decay and overripe conditions characterized by prominent black spots and yellow coloration. The plaintiff asserts that these severe defects rendered the entire agricultural shipment completely worthless for commercial resale. TransCargo contends that the spoilage occurred exclusively while the cargo was within the sole custody, care, and control of King Ocean during the maritime voyage from Central America.

Maritime Complaint Alleges Violation of COGSA, Breach of Contract, and Negligence by Ocean Carrier

The legal framework of the complaint relies heavily on federal maritime law and established shipping statutes. TransCargo brings three distinct counts against King Ocean: violation of the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, breach of contract, and general maritime negligence. The plaintiff argues that both bills of lading incorporated the provisions of the federal Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, which established a non-delegable duty for the carrier to exercise due diligence in properly caring for and preserving the cargo. The lawsuit claims King Ocean breached these duties by failing to keep the reefer machinery in proper working condition, failing to monitor transit temperatures, and delivering ruined cargo despite receiving full payment for the freight charges.

Plaintiff Demands Full Compensation for Worthless Cargo, Paid Freight Charges, and Foreseeable Lost Profits

As a direct result of the alleged shipping failures, TransCargo is seeking comprehensive financial relief from the federal court. The prayer for relief requests compensatory damages equal to the market value of the destroyed wholesale produce alongside a full refund of all ocean freight charges paid to King Ocean for the botched transport. Furthermore, the plaintiff is seeking consequential damages to recover lost profits stemming from its inability to fulfill resale contracts, as well as the mitigation costs incurred while handling the spoiled fruit. The cargo owner also requests pre-judgment interest from the date of the loss, post-judgment interest, and reimbursement for all court costs and legal expenses arising from the litigation.

Contact an Experienced Maritime Cargo Damage Lawyer Today to Protect Your Commercial Shipping Rights

Importers and logistics companies that suffer severe financial losses due to spoiled cargo, faulty refrigerated containers, or carrier negligence have distinct rights under United States maritime law. Ocean carriers are bound by strict statutory and contractual duties to protect perishable freight from foreseeable transit hazards. If your business has experienced cargo damage, total loss of inventory, or container machinery failures during international transit, our experienced team of maritime lawyers is ready to assist you.

Contact us now to speak with a skilled marine cargo shortage and damage 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.