1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 9:22-cv-81771 

GEORGE SHARP,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED VAN LINES, LLC,

Defendant.

___________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, GEORGE SHARP (“SHARP” and/or “Plaintiff”), by and through his 

undersigned counsel, hereby sues Defendant, UNITED VAN LINES, LLC (“UNITED” and/or 

“Defendant”) and alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

This action has been filed due the oppressive, deceptive, and unscrupulous actions taken 

by Defendant to the detriment of Plaintiff and likely many other customers, who have been forced 

to adhere to the unreasonable and/or adhesive provisions of the Bill of Lading authorizing 

Defendant to have 120 days to process a claim. Plaintiff has been hindered from being able to take 

residence in his newly acquired 1.4-million-dollar townhouse, because of his bed and mattress 

being destroyed, his couch being left without parts as well as numerous other damages to other 

pieces of furniture and significant damages to the freshly painted clean white walls and custom 

stairs. Plaintiff has been forced to incur significant expenses for hotel and meals over the last 2 

months because of Defendant’s ongoing negligent processing and delay of plaintiff’s claims for 

reimbursement. Defendant has been completely unsympathetic and without remorse to the damage 

Case 9:22-cv-81771-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 1 of 10
2

they caused, and to the fact that Plaintiff has been forced to live in a hotel whenever he is in his 

city of residence over the last 2 months.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action constituting claims under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; arising under an Act of Congress regulating trade and commerce known 

as the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 14706); and/or supplemental jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1369 and, alternately under Florida state law.

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, GEORGE SHARP is an individual over the age of eighteen and otherwise 

sui juris. At all times material, Plaintiff was the owner of the household goods at issue herein.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant UNITED VAN LINES, LLC, is a 

corporation or other business entity existing under and by virtue of the laws of Missouri; is a carrier 

and/or a freight forwarder within the meaning of the Carmack Amendment; and/or a broker or 

other transportation provider for carriage of goods by road for hire; and is otherwise sui juris.

UNITED conducts business in Palm Beach County, Florida.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

4. On or about March 9, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement for 

interstate moving services of household goods from Scottsdale, Arizona to Boynton Beach, 

Florida.

5. In consideration of certain agreed freight charges thereupon paid or agreed to be 

paid, Defendant agreed to transport and/or arrange to transport the household items and to deliver 

same in like good order and condition to Plaintiff in Boynton Beach, Florida.

6. The household goods are described in the estimate, contract, and bill of lading 

attached hereto as composite Exhibit “A”.

Case 9:22-cv-81771-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 2 of 10
3

7. Plaintiff had solicited a quote from Defendant’s website that was maintained by 

Defendant in its solicitation of business.

8. Plaintiff reasonably believed that he was doing business with Defendant and that 

Defendant would be performing the moving services for his move.

9. In addition, Plaintiff reasonably believed this due in part, to the representations on 

Defendant’s website, dealings between the parties, and the reputation and goodwill Defendant 

represented to benefit from in the industry.

10. Plaintiff purchased an additional Two-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) of 

coverage from Defendant with the belief that this additional coverage would insure Plaintiff 

against any damaged or lost items damaged or lost by Defendant.

11. Pursuant to the agreement, Defendant was to arrive on or about March 24, 2022, at

Plaintiff’s former residence in Arizona to assist with packing household goods and custom packing 

of fragile/ specialty household goods.

12. Defendant was contracted to load the household goods on March 25, 2022, with the 

assistance of a third party to ensure the fragile/custom items were loaded and unloaded properly.

13. Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff that Defendant would use subcontractors or any 

third parties to move the goods.

14. The Plaintiff’s property was in good undamaged condition and nearly new when it 

was picked up on March 25, 2022, by the Defendant’s representatives at his Scottsdale, Arizona 

former home.

15. Defendant did not inventory all of Plaintiffs household goods.

16. During the move, Defendant lost or damaged most of Plaintiff’s property that

Defendant had agreed to safely transport for Plaintiff.

Case 9:22-cv-81771-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 3 of 10
4 

17. Plaintiff’s property did not arrive at its destination in the same condition and good 

order when picked up by Defendant in violation of Defendant’s contractual obligations and duties.

18. Defendant failed to deliver Plaintiff’s property to Plaintiff in good undamaged 

condition. 

19. Defendant negligently packed household goods and negligently unpacked fragile/ 

specialty household goods damaging those goods in spite of the fact that Plaintiff paid for 

professional packing services.

20. On or about September 12, 2022, Plaintiff submitted claims to the for his personal 

property loss. See Exhibit “B”.

21. In addition to electronic communication, Plaintiff made numerous complaints 

orally and in writing to Defendant regarding the severely damaged state of the items after delivery. 

22. Since damaging most of Plaintiff’s personal property, Defendant has refused to 

fairly reimburse Plaintiff for the damaged property breaching its contractual duties, despite 

repeated demands by Plaintiff to honor the terms of the Bill of Lading. 

23. Defendant acted negligently, grossly negligently, recklessly, and/or engaged in 

willful misconduct in that it acted with willful, wanton, and reckless disregard of its duties as a 

carrier, forwarder, broker, and/or other transportation provider in the safekeeping and transport of 

Plaintiff’s household items, or otherwise materially deviated from its duties.

24. All conditions precedent to filing this action have been fulfilled, to the extent not 

excused, discharged, satisfied, or waived by Defendant’s conduct. 

25. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel to represent him in this matter and 

has agreed to pay reasonable fees for services being provided on his behalf.

Case 9:22-cv-81771-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 4 of 10
5

COUNT 1- BREACH OF THE CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE

Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth above in Paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully set 

forth herein.

26. On or about March 25, 2022, Defendant received in Scottsdale, Arizona, a shipment 

of Plaintiff’s household goods in good order and condition and agreed to pack, transport, carry, 

and deliver the household goods to Plaintiff in Boynton Beach, Florida, in like good order and 

condition as when received and pursuant to the Bill of Lading under which it was carried. A true 

copy of the bill of lading is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

27. Plaintiff declared a value of $200,000.00 in writing for the shipment and paid 

Defendant an additional upcharge for the valuation declaration.

28. The household goods were not delivered at the destination in like good order and 

condition, but rather, there was evidence of damage and loss. Plaintiff discovered that his 

belongings were not protected or wrapped in spite of the fact that he paid for such a service.

29. Plaintiff made a timely written claim for the damage and loss of the household

goods alleged, but Defendant has failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff has been 

damaged in an amount, as nearly as can now be estimated, up to or exceeding seventy-five 

thousand dollars ($75,000.00).

30. Plaintiff has duly performed all duties and obligations required to be performed by 

them.

31. By reason of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff has sustained damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GEORGE SHARP demands judgment against the Defendant, 

UNITED VAN LINES, LLC, in the amount exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars 

($75,000.00), pre-judgment interest, costs, and for any additional relief to which it may be entitled.

Case 9:22-cv-81771-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 5 of 10
6

COUNT 2 - BREACH OF DUTIES UNDER THE CARMACK AMENDMENT

Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth above in Paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully set 

forth herein.

32. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant was a carrier of merchandise and/or a freight 

forwarder within the meaning of the Carmack Amendment, 49 U. S.C. 14706, et seq., and Federal 

and state laws governing interstate motor carriers of household goods.

33. Defendant’s conduct of delivering the shipment damaged also constitutes 

conversion and/or a material deviation of its contractual obligation.

34. The household goods were not delivered at the destination in like good order and 

condition, rather, there was evidence of damage and loss.

35. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GEORGE SHARP demands judgment against the Defendant, 

UNITED VAN LINES, LLC, in the amount exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars 

($75,000.00), pre-judgment interest, costs, and for any additional relief to which it may be entitled.

COUNT 3 - NEGLIGENCE

(In the Alternative)

Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth above in Paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully set 

forth herein.

36. Defendant was at all times material and purports to be a professional moving 

company. As such, they had a duty to load and transport Plaintiff’s belongings in a reasonable 

manner.

37. Defendant breached its duties and obligations to Plaintiff to provide a professional, 

quality carrier to carry, transport, and deliver Plaintiff’s property, and otherwise breached their 

obligations.

Case 9:22-cv-81771-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 6 of 10
7

38. Because Defendant breached its obligations to Plaintiff to provide a professional, 

quality carrier to carry, transport and deliver Plaintiff’s property, Plaintiff’s belongings were 

damaged.

39. In addition, Defendant was negligent, as during the delivery of the move,

Defendant’s movers damaged most of the newly painted white walls and certain newly installed 

stairs leading up to the 2nd story of the subject premises.

40. The damage to Plaintiff’s belongings and property were caused solely by the 

reckless and unreasonable way in which Defendant handled and delivered Plaintiff’s belongings.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GEORGE SHARP demands judgment against the Defendant, 

UNITED VAN LINES, LLC, in the amount exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars 

($75,000.00), pre-judgment interest, costs, and for any additional relief to which it may be entitled.

COUNT 4 - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION

(In the Alternative)

41. Defendant purposefully and intentionally made false statements and 

representations that it would transport all of Plaintiff’s household goods and furniture from 

Arizona to Florida in the manner described in the parties’ agreement and for the price as set forth 

in their agreement.

42. At the time the parties entered into the contract, Defendant knew those 

representations made to Plaintiff were false and that they were being made for the purpose of 

inducing Plaintiff to act in reliance on these representations.

43. Defendant’s misrepresentations include but are not limited to, that Defendant

would be the exclusive carrier of the goods thereby creating a false expectation of quality and 

professionalism when it knew that it would not be acting as the carrier but rather, would 

Case 9:22-cv-81771-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 7 of 10
8

subcontract the job out to third parties unknown to Plaintiff.

44. Plaintiff’s subsequent action in reliance on the correctness of the representation 

resulted in significant damages up to or exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GEORGE SHARP demands judgment against the Defendant, 

UNITED VAN LINES, LLC, in the amount exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars 

($75,000.00), pre-judgment interest, costs, and for any additional relief to which it may be entitled.

COUNT 5 - VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA

DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth above in Paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully set 

forth herein.

45. This is an action pursuant to Florida Statutes 501.201, et seq., otherwise known as 

Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act (“FDUPTA”).

46. FDUTPA is intended to protect the consuming public and legitimate business 

enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, 

or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

47. Plaintiff is a consumer, and the subject transactions are trade or commerce, as 

defined by FDUPTA.

48. An unfair practice under the FDUPTA is a practice that is either immoral, unethical, 

oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

49. The Defendant purposefully and intentionally made false statements and 

representations that it would transport all of Plaintiff’s household goods and furniture from 

Arizona to Florida in the manner described in the parties’ agreement and for the price as set forth 

in their agreement and that the additional insurance coverage purchased by Plaintiff would ensure 

Case 9:22-cv-81771-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 8 of 10
9 

Plaintiff’s household goods against any negligence, loss, or damage caused by Defendant.

50. At the time the parties entered into the contract, Defendant knew or should have 

known those false, misleading, and/or deceptive statements made to Plaintiff were false and that 

they were being made for the purpose of inducing him to act in reliance on these representations 

which constitute “deceptive acts or practices” in violation of § 501.204(1), Florida Statutes.

51. Defendant’s false, misleading, and/or deceptive statements include but are not 

limited to, that it was Defendant that would be the carrier of the goods thereby creating a false 

expectation of quality and professionalism when it knew that it would not be acting as the carrier 

but rather, would subcontract the job out to third parties.

52. Furthermore, the Defendant’s actions constitute unconscionable commercial 

practices, deception, fraud, false pretenses, misrepresentation, concealment, and misrepresentation 

of material facts, all in violation of FDUTPA.

53. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false, misleading, and 

deceptive practices, conduct in trade and commerce, the Plaintiffs have suffered substantial 

damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GEORGE SHARP respectfully prays that judgment to be 

entered against Defendant, UNITED VAN LINES, LLC for: 

(a) All actual damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of these wrongful acts, 

(b) For a declaratory judgment that the Sellers’ deceptive acts violate FDUPTA, 

(c) Together with interest, attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §57.105, costs, and 

(d) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.

By: /s/ Michael L. Feinstein

Michael L. Feinstein, Esq.

FBN: 650382 

Case 9:22-cv-81771-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 9 of 10
10

MICHAEL L. FEINSTEIN, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

501 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 200

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Tel: (954) 767-9662 

Fax: (954) 901-2706 

Michael@feinsteinlaw.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15th day of November 2022 a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing has been furnished by electronic mail to all counsel of record.

/s/ Michael L. Feinstein

Michael L. Feinstein Esq.

Case 9:22-cv-81771-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 10 of 10