OPINION AND ORDER This case arises out of a shipment of glass doors and windows that arrived in damaged condition after being transported from Cork, Ireland to Connecticut. Discovery is now closed. Defendants Maersk Line (“Maersk”) and Albatrans Inc. (“Albatrans”) each moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P. Maersk’s motion is directed solely toward damages. It urges that plaintiff’s recoverable damages are limited to $500 per “package” under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. §30701 (“COGSA”), and that because the bills of lading identify two containers as “packages,” its damages are limited to a total of $1,000. Albatrans moves for summary judgment as to its liability under COGSA. It asserts that it was retained solely to make freight-forwarding arrangements and provide for customs clearance. It urges that because it performed limited duties as a freight forwarder, and did not act as a non-vessel operating common carrier (“NVOCC”), it cannot be liable under COGSA. As will be explained, Maersk has failed to demonstrate that its bills of lading reflect an agreement between the shipper and carrier to treat the two shipping “containers” as “packages.” Because Maersk has not satisfied its burden as summary judgment movant to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the number of COGSA “packages,” its motion will be denied. Albatrans, however, has come forward with evidence that it functioned as a freight forwarder, and, in opposition, Hartford has not offered evidence that would permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that Albatrans acted as a NVOCC or is otherwise liable under COGSA. Albatrans’s motion will therefore be granted. BACKGROUND. This action arises from a shipment of glass doors and windows that arrived in damaged condition after being transported from Cork, Ireland to Stratford, Connecticut via the Port of Newark. (Maersk 56.1 1; Pl. 56.1 Resp. 1; Albatrans 56.1 1; Pl. 56.1 Resp. 1.)1 The shipment was ordered by non-party Klearwall Industries, LLC (“Klearwall”). (Albatrans 56.1 2; Pl. 56.1 Resp. 2.) Klearwall insured the shipment through plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Co. (“Hartford”), which is the subrogated insurer. (Albatrans 56.1 13; Pl. 56.1 Resp. 13.) Hartford seeks $306,702.02 for the damage that allegedly occurred during the shipping process. (Maersk 56.1 1; Pl. 56.1 Resp. 1.) Klearwall retained defendant Albatrans to act as the shipment’s customs broker. (Albatrans 56.1 10; Pl. 56.1 Resp. 10.) Klearwall authorized and instructed Albatrans to effectuate customs clearance and the release of the glass shipment into the United States, as well as to arrange for the shipment’s ocean transport. (Albatrans 56.1
4-5; Pl. 56.1 Resp.
