III. PK and Conti Corso move for summary judgment with respect to all of WPI’s cross claims and counterclaims. They argue that because WPI’s claims for recovery are for purely economic damages and do not allege any physical injury to cargo, they are barred by the maritime doctrine of Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927). In Robins Dry Dock, a vessel was negligently damaged while undergoing ordinary maintenance at a dry dock, which delayed the vessel’s return to service. During that time, the vessel was subject to a charter, and the time charterer sued the dry dock for damages resulting from the loss of use of the vessel due to the delay. In denying recovery to the time charter 94 CIV. 5689, 1995 WL 251571 (S.D.N.Y. April 28, 1995) (<HOLDING>). WPI counters that recovery is permitted in
recognizing debt cancellation as consideration holding that allegations of intentional acts causing injury resulted in the complaint falling outside the coverage of an insurance policy insuring only against accidental injury holding that robins dry dock barred a time charterers claim for loss of use that resulted from the chartered ship being laid up after a collision with the defendants vessel holding that the rule of robins dry dock barred recovery of a cruise ship concessionaires lost profits that resulted from the cancellation of cruises during repairs after an accidental grounding holding that owners testimony that he lost 200200 in income was legally insufficient because it did not provide any indication of how the owner determined what his lost profits were