FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 12, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 15 48 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 61 47 0- CV-PAS W ERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., Pl ai nt iff Co un te r Defen da nt , Thi rdPart y

Pla in ti ff, App el le e, ACE SEGUROS SA, Co ns ol . Pla in ti ff App el la nt , ve rs us W ESTW IND MARITIM E INTERNATIONAL , INC., W ESTW IND INTERNATIONAL , INC., Defen da nt s Co un te r Defen da nt s Thi rdPart y

Defen da nt s App el le es , TRANSPRO LOGISTICS , INC., Defen da nt Co un te r Cl ai m an t Thi rdPart y

Defen da nt App el le e.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J an ua ry 12 , 20 09 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d COHILL, Dis tri ctJu dg e.

* ANDERSON, Circ ui t J ud ge : Inth is cas e, Ace Se gu ro s, S.A. (“ Ace”) su edW ern er En te rp ris es , Inc
. (“ W ern er”) to reco ve r th e fu ll va lu e o f a s hi pm en t o f lo stcel l p ho ne s u nd er the Carm ackAm en dm en t t o t he Int ers ta te Co m m erce Act, 4 9 U.S.C. § 14 70 6 (“ Carm ackAm en dm en t” ). The d is tri ctco urt, i n asu m m ary jud gm en t ru li ng in fav orof Wern er, s us ta in edW ern er’s l im it at io n o f it s l iabi li ty. Ace ap pe al s. Co m m un ic aci on es Next el de Mex ic o, S.A. d e C.V. (“Nex te l” ) ha d t he cel l ph on es m anuf

actur ed , andarra ng edth ro ug h i nt erm ed ia rie s t o h av e Werner , a
co m m on carr ie r, tra ns po rt t he m . Next el in su redth e fu ll va lu e o f it s s hi pm en ts th ro ug h Ace , it s i ns ur an ce co m pa ny. The cel l p ho ne s wer e st ol endu rin g t ran si t. Ace p ai d Nex te l’s cl ai m

forth e lo ss , andwas s ub ro ga te d t o t he in te res ts of Ne xt el
. The pri m ary is su e in th is cas e in vo lv es th e v al id it y of Wern er’s l im it at io n o f

Honora ble Mauric e B . Cohill , J r., United States District Judge f or the Western D istrict * of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 2it s l iabi li ty (to $ 20 0,0 00 ). Thatis su e in tu rnde pe nd s o n wh ethe r th is cas e is

di st in gu is habl e fro m

th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Norf ol k S ou th ern Rai lway Co . v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14 , 12 5 S . Ct. 3 85 , 16 0 L.Ed .2d28 3 (2 00 4) . W e d et erm in e th atKirb y

is no t d is ti ng ui sh ab le . Ace als o a rg ue s t ha t Werne r di d n ottak e th e st ep s n eces sa ry

un de r th e Carm ackAm en dm en t t o l im itit s l iabi li ty. W e co nc lu de th atth e co ntractua l l im it at io n o f li ab il it y he re co m pl ie d wi th th e ap pl ic ab le st atut ory requi rem en ts . Fin al ly, Ace arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ap pl ie d an in co rrec t ra te of p reju dg m en t i nt eres t. We fin d n o e rro r. Acco rd in gl y , forth e
reas on s s etforth in gre at er d et ai l b el ow, we af firm . I. BACKGROUND In 1 99 9 o r 20 00 , Next el be ga n u si ng W es twi ndMari ti m e In te rn at io na l, In c.
an d West win d In te rn at io na l, In c. (co ll ect iv el y “ W es twi nd ”) t o a rran ge for th e tra ns po rta ti on of c el l p ho ne s fr om a Mo to ro lapl an t i n P lant at io n, Fl or id a to a
cu st om s b ro ke r in Texa s. Westwin d b ro ke redap pr ox im at el y on e sh ip m en t a wee k of Mo to ro lacel l p ho ne s fo r Nex te l fr om Flo rid a to Texa s. The in vo ic e fo r W es twi nd ’s servi ces (“ In vo ic e”), the on ly con tra ctbe twee n Nex te l an d West win d, n ot ifi edNext el th atth irdpa rty carri ers m ig htli m itth ei r li ab il it y for lo ss . Parag rap h 7 of t he Inv oi ce s ta te d: Decl ar in g H ig her Va lu e to Thi rd Pa rti es . Thir d p art ie s t o 3who m th e g oo ds are en tru st edm ay li m itli ab il it y

for lo ss or d am ag e; th e Co m pa ny will reque stex ces s v al ua ti on co ve rag e o nl y up on sp eci fic writ te n i ns tru ct io ns fro m th e Cu st om er, wh ic h m

us t ag ree t o pa y an y ch arg es th eref

or e; in th e ab se nc e o f writ te n i ns tru ct io ns or t he refu sa l o f th e th irdpa rty to a gr ee t o ahi gh er d ecl aredva lu e, at Co m pa ny’ s d is cret io n, t he go od s m ay be ten de redto th e th irdpa rty, subjec t t o t he term s o f th e th irdpa rty’ s l im it at io ns of l iabi li ty and/o r te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f se rv ic e. Nex te l re cei ve d t hi s s tand ardsh ip pi ng in vo ic e ap pr ox im at el y 25 0 t im es pri orto th e lo ss at i ss ue . Beg in ni ng aro un d 2 00 0, Westwin d p eri od ic al ly arran ge d fo r carria ge of t he Mo to ro lacel l p ho ne s t hr ou gh Tran sp ro Log is ti cs (“ Tran sp ro ”). InNov em be r of 20 00 , Trans pr o e nt eredin to a Bro ke r Tran sp orta ti on Agre em en t (“ BTA”) wi th W ern er. The BTA go ve rn edth e g en eral bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p b etweenth e p art ie s. Para gr ap h 6 co nt ai ne d t he fol lo win g l im it at io n o f li ab il it y claus e: Carr ie r’s li ab il it y

forlo ss , dam ag e o r in

jury to ca rg o o ccu rri ng whi le in th e p os se ss io n o r un de r th e co nt ro l o f Carrie r he reu nd er, an d res ul ti ng fro m

Carr ie r’s pe rfo rm an ce o f th e se rv ic es pro vi de d fo r in th is Agre em en t, s ha ll be th e sa m e st an da rdof l iabi li ty im po se d b y 49 U.S.C. Sect io n 1 47 06 an d app li cab le co m m on law. Pro vi de d, t ha t the Carr ie r’s m ax im

um li ab il it y forlo ss or d am ag e to carg o s ha ll no t i n an y ev en t ex ceedTwo Hund redTho us an d Do ll ars ($2 00 ,00 0) pe r tru ck lo adsh ip m en t u nl es s a h ig he r de gr ee o f li ab il it y is sp eci fic al ly as su m edin writ in g b y

anau th or iz edrep res en ta ti ve of C arri er. Para gr ap h 3 of t he BTA als o i nc or po rat edW ern er’s t ari ff, an d i te m 38 0 o f th e ta rif

f in cl ud es th e fo ll owi ng pro vi si on :

4On d om es ti c sh ip m en ts withi n t he Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca an d

Can ad a, sh ip pe rs m ay , at t he ir o pt io n, s el ectli ab il it y co ve rag e fo r lo ss orda m ag e to carg o a s s etforth in 49 U.S.C. § 1 47 06 (“ Carm ack Liab il it y ”) as pro vi de d i n i te m 38 5. If C arm ackLiab il it y is no t se le ct ed , Carri er’s l iabi li ty for l os s o r da m ag es to sh ip m en ts withi n t he Uni te d S ta te s an d C an ad a is li m it edto th e le ss er o f (1 ) th e actua l v al ue of th e car go so lo stor d am ag ed , or (2 ) a m ax im um of Two Hun dr ed Tho us an d Do ll ars ($2 00 ,00 0) pe r truc kl oa d s hi pm en t. Ite m 38 5 o f th e ta rif

f st at es : Tit le 49 U.S.C. § 1 47 06 pro vi de s fo r fu ll va lu e li ab il it y an d o th er li ab il it y term s fo r th e carrie r an d s hi pp er re ga rd in g l os s an d d am ag e to carg o. Inord er fo r th e fu ll li ab il it y term s o f th e p ro vi si on to ap pl y to an y sh ip m en t tran sp orte d b y

Carr ie r th e sh ip pe r m

us t co m pl y with al l of th e fo ll owi ng requi rem en ts : 1. The sh ip pe r m

us t n ot ify Carri er n o l es s t ha n s ev en ty-two (7 2) ho ur s p rio r to pi ckup of the sh ip m en t fo r tra ns po rta ti on th atth e sh ip pe r ch oo se s C arm ackLiab il it y pr ot ect io n. 2. The sh ip pe r m

us t h av e p rep ai d t he Carm ackLiab il it y rat e whi ch is co m

pu te d a s (a ) th e rat e quo te d t o s hi pp er i n writ in g, o r in th e ab se nc e o f a s pe ci fic writ te n quo ta ti on , th e rat e co nt ai ne d i n C arri er’s s ta nd ardrat e m atrix , pl us (b ) two hu nd redfif

ty perce nt(25 0%) of s ai d ra te . 3. The sh ip pi ng in st ru ct io ns on th e b il l o f la di ng or s hi pp in g do cu m en t m

us t s pe ci fic al ly not e: (a) tha t the sh ip m en t i s m ov in g u nd er 4 9 U.S.C. § 14 70 6 fu ll li ab il it y term s, an d (b ) th atth e sh ip m en t i s s ub ject t o C arm ackLiab il it y rat es . (em ph as is in ori gi na l). Nex te l n ev er req ue st edful l l iabi li ty cov erag e fro m W es twi ndforan y

sh ip m en t. Thu s, Westwin d n ev er re qu es te d fu ll li ab il it y
co ve rag e fro m

Tran sp ro , whi ch ne ve r in vo ke d t he pro vi si on s o f it em 38 5 i n W ern er’s t ari ff. Nex te l i ns ur edth e fu ll va lu e o f al l i ts sh ip m en ts th ro ug h Ace
. 5On Oct ob er 8 , 20 04 , a sh ip m en t o f 7,9 58 cel l p ho ne s v al ue d a t

ap pr ox im at el y

$1 ,25 1,6 73 .30 was s to le n fr om on e o f W ern er’s tru ck s. At Ne xt el ’s reque st , th e lo stsh ip m en t was carr ie d u nd er a M ot or ol a m an ife stsi gn edby the W ern er driv er. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Ace as to li ab il it y for th e lo stsh ip m en t. Ho wev er, the di st ric t co urt al so gra nt edW ern er’s
m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t as to li m it at io n o f li ab il it y an d e nt ereda jud gm en t i n th e am ou ntof $ 20 0,0 00
. Ace ap pe al s the lat te r ru li ng . 1 II. DISCUSS ION Two Supr em e Co urt p rece de nt s g o alo ng way to wardres ol vi ng th is di sp ut e. Fi rs t, we wi ll di sc us s t he se de ci si on s an d t he m an ne r inwhi ch th ey for ecl os e m an y of Ace’s arg um en ts . W e th entu rnto th e requi rem en ts un de r th e Carm ack Am en dm en t t o l im itli ab il it y . Fin al ly, we di sc us s the ap pr op ria te rat e o f pr ejud gm en t i nt eres t. 2 A. Carg o Own ers (i.e . Shi pp ers ) are B ou ndby L iabi li ty L im it at io ns Neg ot ia te d B etweenanInt erm ed ia ry an d aCarr ie r I n N o r f o l k S o u t h e r n R a i l w a y C o . v . K i r b y , th e Supr em e Co urt s etaneffi ci en t

We reviewthe entry

of summary

judgme nt de novo. See Whately v. CNA Ins. Co., 189 1 F.3d 1310, 1313 ( 11th Cir. 1999). Summ ary judgme nt is appropriate when the e vidence , viewed in the light most favor able to the nonmovingparty , prese nts no ge nuine issue of fa ct and c ompels judgme nt as a matter

of law. I d.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Ace ’s re maining a

rguments are dismiss ed without need f or fur ther discussion. 2 6de fau ltrul e fo r li ab il it y li m it at io ns in carri ag e co nt ract s: “ Whe n a n i nt erm ed ia ry
co nt ract s wi tha carr ie r to tra ns po rt g oo ds , th e car go own er’s rec ov ery ag ai ns t the
carr ie r is li m it edby the li ab il ity li m it at io n t o wh ic h t he in te rm ed iary an d c arri er ag reed .” 54 3 U.S. 1 4, 3 3, 1 25 S. Ct. 3 85 , 39 8, 1 60 L.Ed.2d28 3 (2 00 4) . Kirb y hi redInt ern at io na l Carg o C on tro l (“ ICC” ) to arra ng e fo r th e sh ip m en t o f m ach in ery fro m Aus tra li a to Hun ts vi ll e, Alab am a. Kirb y acce pt eda co nt ractua l l iabi li ty li m it at io n i n IC C’s bi ll of l ad in g. Id . at 1 9, 1 25 S. Ct. at39 0. The n, IC C h ire d Ham bu rg Su d t o tran sp ort the carg o fr om Aus tra li a to Sav an na h a ndon to Hun ts vi ll e, an d a ccep te d a n e ve n g reat er l im it at io n o f li ab il it y inHam bu rg Su d’s bi ll of l ad in g. Nex t, Ham bu rg Su d h ire d No rfo lkRai lway to t ran sp ort the
m ach in ery fro m

Sav an na h t o Hu nt sv il le . A “ Him al ay a Cl au se ” ex te nd edth e li m it edli ab il it y

inHam bu rg Su d’s b il l o f la di ng to Norf ol k. Mari ti m e la w 3 go ve rn edall th e co nt ract s. Th e Nor fo lktra in de rai le d c au si ng ex te ns iv e d am ag e to th e car go . Kirb y

su edNorf

ol k fo r th e fu ll va lu e o f it s l os s. No rfo lkin vo ke d t he li m it at io n o f li ab il it y

in Ham bu rg Su d’s b il l o f la di ng . Id. at21 , 12 5 S . Ct. at39 1- 92 . App lying it s d efau ltrul e, th e Co urt h el d t ha t the li m it at io n o f li ab il it y in Ham bu rg Su d’s b il l o f la di ng bo un d Ki rb y . Id. at34 -3 6, 1 25 S. Ct. at39 9- 40 0. In Himalaya Clauses e x tend liability limit ations to downstream pa rties, in this case to “a ll 3 ag ents . . . (includinginland) ca rrier s . . . and all indepe ndent contra ctors whatsoever.” Kirby , 543 U.S. at 20-21, 125 S. Ct. at 391. 7do in g s o, t he Co urt s ou gh t t o e li m in at e th e n eedfor carr ie rs to co m

m itti m e an d effo rt i nv es ti ga ti ng lo ng ch ai ns of p art ie s an d a gr eem en ts , th ereb y po te nt ia ll y
cau si ng hi gh er s hi pp in g ra te s. Id . at 3 4- 35 , 12 5 S . Ct. at39 9. Fu rth erm or e, th e Co urt fo un d t he rul e equi tabl e. Id . at 3 5, 1 25 S. Ct. at39 9. Ki rb y ret ai ne d t he op ti on to su e ICC un de r th e te rm s i t n eg ot ia te d i n IC C’s bi ll of l ad in g. Id
. The Supr em e Co urt ex pr es sl y de riv edit s h ol di ng fro m GreatNorthe rn Rai lway Co. v . O’ Co nn or , 23 2 U.S. 5 08 , 34 S. Ct. 3 80 , 58 L.Ed. 70 3 (1 91 4) . See Kirb y , 54 3 U.S. at33 , 12 5 S . Ct. at39 8. O’Con no r em pl oyed the Bo y d Tra ns fer Co m pa ny to a rran ge forth e sh ip m en t o f so m e o f he r pe rs on al effe ct s fr om Mi nn es ot a to Oreg on . The Bo y d C om pany use d Gre atNorthe rnto tra ns po rt t he carg o. Grea t No rth ern ’s tar iff st at edth atho us eh ol d g oo ds with ava lu e n otto
ex ceed$1 0 p er h un dr edweig htwere s hi pp edat arat e o f $1 pe r hu nd redweig ht
. The rai lro ad ’s bi ll of l ad in g, s ig ne d b y th e Bo y d C om

pa ny, ind ic at edth at O’ Co nn or ’s carg o was sh ip pe d o n t he $1 rat e an d re le as edat ava lu e o f $1 0 p er hu nd redweig ht . The g oo ds were l os t en rou te an d O’Con no r su edGreatNort he rn to reco ve r th ei r fu ll va lu e. GreatNort he rnin vo ke d t he li m it at io n o f li ab il it y in it s ta rif f an d b il l o f la di ng . GreatNorthe rn , 23 2 U.S. at50 9- 51 0, 3 4 S . Ct. at38 1. Th e Co urt h el d t ha t “ th e carrie r ha d t he rig htto ass um e th atth e tr an sf er co m pa ny cou ld ag ree upo n t he term s o f th e sh ip m en t.” Id . at 5 14 , 34 S. Ct. at38 3. Th e p la in ti ff’s
8rem edy

forlo ss be y on d t he am ou ntof t he li m it at io n was ag ai ns t the Bo y d Co m pa ny. Id
. The se cas es gu id e u s t o d is po se of a ndfor ecl os e se ve ral of Ac e’s arg um en ts , as fol lo ws. Fi rs t, Ki rb y ’s tea ch in g i s n otli m it edto m ari ti m e la w. Kirb y ex pr es sl y de riv edit s h ol di ng fro m

GreatNorthe rn , a no n- m ari ti m e cas e. Furth erm or e, th e 4 pr in ci pl es of f

ai rn es s an d e ffi ci en cy

an im at in g t he Kirb y

rul e are no t u ni qu e to th e
m ari ti m e co nt ex t. As e vi de nc edby the cir cu m st an ces of t hi s ca se , con tra ct s fo r
carr ia ge on lan d a s wel l as seam ay in vo lv e ex te nd edch ai ns of p art ie s an d ag reem en ts . Thu s, the be ne fit s o f al lo win g c arri ers to rel y onli m it at io ns of li ab il it y ne go ti at edby int erm ed ia rie s ar e equa ll y as g reathe re as un de r m ari ti m e la w.

Ace ’s attempt to distinguish Gre at Northe rn fa ils. W hen the Supre me Court decide d

4 Gre at Northe rn, the lawrequire d car riers to file ta

riffs f or household g oods with the Interstate Commerce Commission. Interstate Commerc e Ac t, ch. 104 § 6, 24 Stat. 379, 381 (1887); see also Gre at Northe rn, 232 U.S. at 511, 34 S. Ct. at 382. Ace c ontends that the ac t of filing the tariff g ave c arg o owner s notice of its liability limit ations. Howeve r, the I CC Termination Act of 1995 eliminated the tariff filingrequire ment for house hold good c arriers. See Pub. L . No. 104- 88, 109 Stat. 803, 868-69 (codifie d at 49 U.S.C. § 13702). As a re sult, Ace a rgues that the Supreme Court’s re liance on Great Northern no long er justifies the e x pansion of Kirbyinto nonmaritime law be cause carg o owner s no longe r have notice of liability limit ations in carriers’ tariff s. This argument cannot suc cee d. Mere ly filing a tariff does not g ive a c arg o owner notice of liability

limit ations beca

use the c arg o owner

rema ins unawar e if its intermediar y actua lly selec ts the limi ted liability rate . In fac t, this was the exact fac tual circ umstance in Gr eat Norther n. 232 U.S. at 510, 34 S. Ct . at 381. Fur thermore , Kirby

was de cided in 2004, longafte r the tariff filing r equire ments werealtere d in 1995. In rely ing on Great Northern, the Supreme Court ga ve no indication that its holding wa s aff ecte d by the cha ng e in tariff

filing r equire ments. Thus, Ace asser

ted no per suasive re ason to dec line to ext end Kirby beyond maritime ca ses. 9Seco nd , W es twi nd ’s fai lu re t o n eg ot ia te a li ab il it y li m it at io n wi th Tran sp ro do es no t af

fectth e ap pl ic at io n o f th e Kir by rul e. InKirb y , each in te rm ed ia ry
ne go ti at eda li m it at io n o f li ab il it y with t he pa rty im

m ed ia te ly down st ream . See Kirb y , 54 3 U.S. at18 -2 1, 1 25 S. Ct. at39 0- 91 . Here, Tran sp ro an d West win d d id
no t n eg ot ia te a li m it at io n o f li ab il it y . As a co ns eque nc e, Ace arg ue s t ha t co nt ract s do wns tre am

fro m th is “ gap” can no t b e im

pu te d b ackto Next el . Howev er, the ho ld in g i n Ki rb y

di d n otde pe ndon each pa rty’ s n eg ot ia ti on of ali ab il it y li m it at io n. Infact , th e ru le ex pr es sl y m ad e su chin te ract io ns irr el ev an t. Carrie rs do no t n eed to in ve st ig at e ups tre am

co nt ract s. Th ey

are en ti tl edto ass um e th atth e p arty
en tru st edwith g oo ds m ay ne go ti at e a l im it at io n o f li ab il it y . To ho ldot he rwis e
wou ldde featth e p rin ci pl e o f effi ci en cy th atm ot iv at edth e Kir

by ho ld in g. Mo reo ve r, th is ag ai n p ro du ces anequi tabl e res ul t. The carg o o wne r ret ai ns th e op ti on to su e th e in te rm ed ia ry who fai le d t o p ro te ctit se lf b y ne go ti at in g ali ab il ity li m it at io n. Ace rel ie s h eav il y

on Atk in s M ach in ery v. CH Po well Co ., Inc ., 45 5 F . Sup p. 2d46 1 (D.S.C . 20 06 ), to bo ls te r it s ar gu m en t. Ho wev er, Atk in s p ro vi de s n o
supp ort fo r Ace’s p os it io n. In At ki ns , th e p la in ti ff co nt ract edwith afrei gh t 5

Moreove r, Atkins is a fede ral district cour t decision from a

nother Circuit, and w ould not 5 be bindingin any

event. 10fo rward er t o m ak e arr an ge m en ts forth e tr an sp orta ti onof s om e o f it s m ach in ery.

The frei gh t fo rward er co nt ract edwith D.M. C on so l Li ne (“ DML”) t o c ha rte r sp ace
on anAm eri canPres id en t Li ne s (“ APL”) v es se l. APL hi redCo op er, L.L.C. (“ Co op er”) to pe rfo rm

st ev ed or e se rv ic es . Coo pe r ne gl ig en tl y dam ag edth e
m ach in ery. The p la in ti ff s ue d C oo pe r to reco ve r da m ag es . Coo pe r so ug htto li m it it s l iabi li ty und er the term s o f APL’s st an da rdbi ll of l ad in g. Id . at 4 63 . The di st ric t co urt re

jecte d thi s ar gu m en t b ecau se Co op er fa il edto sh ow t ha t DML an d APL in te nd edAPL’ s s ta nd ardbi ll of l ad in g t o app ly to the ha nd li ng of t he pa rti cu la r m ach in ery th atwas d am ag ed . Id. at46 9- 70 . In fa ct , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d tha t the re was no ev id en ce DML an d APL n eg ot ia te d a ny lim it at io n o f li ab il it y with re sp ectto th is pa rti cu lar m ach in ery. Thu s, At ki ns st an ds for th e
un rem ark ab le pro po si ti on th atCo op er co ul d n otli m itit s l iabi li ty und er a co nt ract
no ne of the pa rti es ev er ag reedwou ldgo ve rnth e h an dl in g o f th e car go at i ss ue . In ot he r wor ds , Coo pe r was en ti tl edto no li m it at io n o f li ab il it y wher e Co op er h adno
co nt ract(no r was a be ne fic iary of a ny con tra ct ) en ti tl in g i t t o d o s o. Ace m ak es a st rai ne d a tt em ptto arg ue th atth is op in io n, d eci de d a fte r Kirb y , supp orts th e as se rti onth ateach in te rm ed ia ry m us t n eg ot ia te a li m it at io n o f li ab il it y . Ju stas DM L andAPL fail edto ne go ti at e a l im it at io n o f li ab il it y , Ace arg ue s t ha t W es twi ndan d Trans pr o a ls o fa il edto ne go ti at e fo r a l im it at io n. Acco rd in g t o Ace , 11be cau se Tran sp ro fai le d t o n eg ot ia te a li m it at io n o f li ab il it y with West win d, Tran sp ro was n o l on ge r “ em po wered ” u nd er trad it io na l ag en cy pri nc ip le s t o
ne go ti at e a l im it at io n o f li ab il it y with Wern er. Atk in s d oe s n otst an d fo r su ch a
swe ep in g p ro po si ti on , whi ch , as d is cu ss edab ov e, wou ldbe squa rel y in co ns is te nt wit h t he ho ld in g a ndrat io na le of Ki rb y . Atk in s m erel y st at es th e co m

m on sen se
ru le th atin ord er t o l im ita carg o o wne r’s reco ve ry th e in te rm ed ia ry

an d t he carr ie r
m us t ag ree t o s om e li m it at io n o f li ab il it y . B. A Carri er Mu stGiv e a Ca rg o Own er o r It s In te rm ed ia ry a Rea so nabl e Opp ortu ni ty to Ch oo se BetweenTwo o r Mo re Lev el s o f Liab il it y Und er the Carm ackAm en dm en t, a ca rri er o f pr op erty in in te rs ta te co m

m erce is li ab le for“ th e actua l l os s o r in jury to the pro pe rty caus edby” th e carrie r. 49 U.S.C. § 1 47 06 (a)( 1) . Howev er, a ca rri er m ay li m itit s l iabi li ty “ to a va lu e
es tabl is he d b y

writ te n o r el ect ro ni c d ecl arat io n o f th e sh ip pe r orby writ te n ag reem en t b etweenth e carrie r an d s hi pp er i f th atva lu e wou ldbe reas on ab le un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e tr an sp orta ti on .” Id . § 1 47 06 (c)( 1) (A). The Elev en thCir cu itus es a fo ur -s te p i nqui ry to de te rm in e whe th er a ca rri er h as effe ct iv el y

li m it edit s l iabi li ty und er the Carm ackAm en dm en t. A carr ie r m us t: (1)
m ai nt ai n atar iff

withi n t he pre sc rib edgu id el in es of t he Int ers ta te Co m m erce Co m m is si on , (2) gi ve th e sh ip pe r a rea so nabl e o pp ortu ni ty to ch oo se be twee n t wo

12orm or e le ve ls of l iabi li ty, (3 ) ob ta in th e sh ip pe r’s ag reem en t as to th e ch oi ce o f

li ab il it y , and(4) is su e a rec ei ptor b il l o f la di ng pri orto m ov in g the sh ip m en t. Sas sy Doll Crea ti on s, In c. v. Watk in s M ot orLin es , 33 1 F .3d83 4, 8 38 -3 9, 8 41 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)
. Ace cl ai m s t ha t Werne r di d n otm eetth e se co ndele m en t o f th is 6 te st . W e d is ag ree. InSas sy Doll , th e rea so nabl e o pp ortu ni ty to ch oo se was a ls o i n d is pu te . 7 The re, the sh ip pe r br ou gh t an act io n a ga in stth e carrie r to reco ve r da m ag es forth e fu ll va lu e o f a l os t s hi pm en t o f pe rfu m e. Id . at 8 36 . The ca rri er’s t ari ff requi red

The Tr uckingIndustry

Regulatory

Reform Ac t of 1994, Pub. L . No. 103-311, 108 Stat. 6 1673, and the I CC Termination Act of 1995 (“ I CCTA”), Pub. L . No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, made sever al statutory

chang es that alter

the first prongof this test. First, I CCTA abolished the Interstate Commerc e Commissi on and replace d it with the Surface Transpor ation Boa rd. Second, these Acts eliminated the r equire ment that cer tain car riers f ile tariff s with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and substituted the re quirement that a car rier pr ovide a shipper , on reque st, with “a written or elec tronic copy

of the ra te, classific ation, rules, and pr actice s, upon which any

rate applicableto its shi pment or agree d to betwee n the shipper a nd car rier is ba sed.” 49 U.S.C. § 13710(a); see Sassy Doll, 331 F.3d at 841. In other c ircumstance s car riers a re now require d to file tariff

s with the Surfac e Tra

nsportation Boa

rd. See 49 U .S.C. § 13702. Sassy Doll, decided in 2003, r esolved a direc t dispute betwee n a ca rrier and a c arg o 7 owner . By

virtue of Kir

by , decide d in 2004, the second e lement is now satisfied if the c arrier g ives the ca

rg o owner

or its intermediary

notice and a

rea sonable opportunity

to choose be tween two or more le vels of liability . Ace ’s insistence that the se cond ele ment of Sassy Doll require s that the ca

rrier not only g ive such notice of liability limit ations to the intermediar y with whom the ca rrier deals, but also re quires the c arrier to g ive such notice to eac h interveningintermediar y (and ultimately

to the owner

or shipper) is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s rulingin Kirby
. “[W ]hen it comes to liabili ty limit ations for ne g lige nce r esulting in damag e, an inter mediary can neg otiate re liable and e nforc eable agree ments with the car riers it eng ag es.” Kirby , 543 U.S. at 33, 125 S. Ct . at 398. Contrary to Ace’ s argument, Kirby eliminated the nee d for c arriers to investigate the longchain of intermediaries. I d. at 34-35, 125 S. Ct. at 399. Moreover , although not nece ssary

under Kirby , Nextel did have notice of the liability

limit ation. Paragraph 7 of Westwind’s Invoice e x pressly stated that downstre am intermedia ries might limi t liabilit y . 13th e sh ip pe r to in di cat e in writ in g o n t he bi ll of l ad in g t he to ta l d ol la r am ou ntof

ex ces s l iabi li ty cov erag e reque st ed . The b il l o f la di ng co nt ai ne d ade cl aredva lu e bo x, wh ere t he sh ip pe r fi ll edin th e actua l v al ue of t he pe rfu m e. Howev er, the bi ll 8 of lad in g d idno t co nt ai n asec ti on forth e sh ip pe r to in se rt areque stfor ad di ti on al
co ve rag e. Id . at 8 37 -3 8. Acco rd in gl y , th is Co urt fo un d: “ Fo rci ng th e sh ip pe r to
ex pr es s a c ho ic e whe re the re i s n o p ro pe r pl ace t o d o s o i s n otpro vi di ng th e sh ip pe r wit h areas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to ch oo se .” Id . at 8 43
. Rel y in g o n t hi s au th or it y , Ace arg ue s t ha t –co nt rary to the requi rem en t o f Sas sy Doll th atth e sh ip pe r m us t h av e anop po rtu ni ty to ch oo se a hi gh er l ev el of li ab il it y – the BTA gav e th e carrie r, rathe r th anth e sh ip pe r, th e p owe r to ass um e a hi gh er am ou ntof c ov erag e. Acco rd in g t o Ace , th is is th e sa m e type o f il lu so ry ch oi ce s een in Sas sy Doll . Ace rel ie s o n P arag rap h 6 of t he BTA, whi ch st at es :

“ Carr ie r’s m ax im

um li ab il it y forlo ss or d am ag e to carg o s ha ll no t i n a ny even t
ex ceedTwo Hund redTho us an d Do ll ars ($2 00 ,00 0) pe r tr uc kl oa d s hi pm en t u nl es s a h ig he r de gr ee o f li ab il it y is sp eci fic al ly ass um edin writ in g b y anau th or iz ed
As noted in the text, i n Sassy Doll, the shipper indicate d on the bill of ladingthe full 8 value of the shipped g oods, thus fulfilling a major portion of the proc ess to selec t full liabili ty cover ag e under

the ca rrier ’s tariff

. Unlike Sassy

Doll, in the instant case no one on behalf of Nextel ever indicated to Werner what the full value of the g oods was or that full liabili ty cover ag e wa s sought. Tr anspro did not do so in its written agree ment with Werner. Ne ither Nextel nor its manufacture r, Motorola, so indicate d. The manife st under which the g oods were car ried wa s silent in thi s reg ard. 14rep res en ta ti ve of C arri er.” Ho wev er, we d o n otreadth e BTA as Ace urg es .

Para gr ap h 6 m

us t b e rea d i n c on

jun ct io n wi th Para gr ap h 3 , whi ch in co rp or at es th e te rm s o f W ern er’s t ari ff. The tar iff st at es th at“ sh ip pe rs m ay , at the ir o pt io n, s el ect li ab il it y co ve rag e fo r lo ss or d am ag e to carg o a s s etforth in 49 U.S.C. § 1 47 06 (“ Carm ackLiab il it y ”) as pro vi de d i n i te m 38 5.” Thes e te rm s ca n b e rea di ly
reco nc il ed . Thu s, u nd er the BTA, th e sh ip pe r is gi ve n the op po rtu ni ty to el ectful l li ab il it y co ve rag e b y

co m pl et in g t he st ep s l is te d i n i te m 38 5 o f th e ta rif

f, pa y in g t he in crea se d fr ei gh t ra te an d o bt ai ni ng th e carrie r’s au th or iz at io n i n wri ti ng . Con tra ry to Ace’s arg um en t, i n t hi s ca se itis th e sh ip pe r (o r Tran sp ro , th e sh ip pe r’s ag en t t o
se le ctli m it edli ab il ity

pu rs ua ntto Kirb y ) who ul ti m at el y ha s t he po wer t o e le ct hi gh er co ve rag e. The ca rri er s im pl y ha s t he rig htto ap pr ov e th e reque stan d 9 ch arg e a co rres po nd in gl y hi gh er ra te . W e al so di sa gr ee wi th Ace’s as se rti on th atth e sh ip pi ng do cu m en t i ts el f m us t in cl ud e th e ch oi ce o f rat es in ord er fo r th e sh ip pe r to ha ve a reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to ch oo se be twee n the m . Our d eci si on in Sir en , Inc . v. Est es Exp res s Li ne s, 2 49 F.3 d 1 26 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) , for ecl os es th is arg um en t. InSir en , th e sh ip pe r su edth e
carr ie r fo r th e fu ll va lu e o f a l os t s hi pm en t o f raz orbl ad es . The s hi pp er p rep ared

Transpr o of cour se wa s party to the BTAand also possesse d a copy of Werner ’s tariff

, 9 which wa s incorporated. 15th e b il l o f la di ng . It i nd ic at edth atth e sh ip m en t wo ul d trav el un de r “ Cl as s 8 5,” a

de si gn at io n c omm on ly und ers to odth ro ug ho utth e truc ki ng in du st ry to li m ita
carr ie r’s li ab il it y

to $1 1.8 7 p er p ou nd . Furt he rm or e, th e carrie r’s ta rif f st at edth at Cl as s 8 5 s hi pm en ts in cl ud eda li ab il it y li m it at io n o f $1 1.8 7 p er p ou nd . Id. at12 69
. The qu es ti on be fo re thi s C ou rt wa s wh ethe r th e b il l o f la di ng co ul d l im itth e
carr ie r’s li ab il it y

if i t d idno t i nc or

po rat e b y refe ren ce the carr ie r’s ta rif f an d c ho ic e of li ab il it y li m it at io ns . Id. at12 70 . W e ref erre d t o t he st atut e it se lf t ha t al lo weda
carr ie r to li m itit s l iabi li ty, by “writ te n a gr eem en t b etweenth e carrie r an d t he sh ip pe r.” Id . at 1 27 0 (q uo ti ng 49 U.S.C. § 1 47 06 (c)(1 )(A)). We hel d: The st atut e m erel y

requi res th atth e carrie r an d s hi pp er ag ree i n writ in g t o areas on ab le va lu e, ab ov e whi ch th e carrie r wil l n otbe li ab le . In o th er wo rd s, the st atut e requi res no th in g m or e th ana va li d writ te n c on tra ctbe twee n the pa rti es est ab li sh in g areas on ab le va lu e fo r th e p ur po se of l im it in g the li ab il it y of the carr ie r. Id . at 1 27 1 (c it at io n o m it te d)
. W e were p art ic ul arl y

pe rs ua de d b y

th e fac t tha t the sh ip pe r dr aft edth e b il l o f la di ng . Id. Infact , we hav e co ns is te nt ly beenrel uc ta ntto pro te cta so ph is ti cat ed sh ip pe r fro m

it se lf wh enitdra fts a sh ip pi ng do cu m en t. See Sas sy Doll , 33 1 F .3dat 84 3 (“ Oursym

pa th y do es no t g o o utto th e draft er o f a b il l o f la di ng who bl am es
an ot he r pa rty for the res ul ts th atflo w fro m de fect s i n t ha t d oc um en t” ); S wift Tex ti le s, In c., v. Watk in s M ot or Lin es , Inc ., 79 9 F .2d69 7, 7 04 (11 th Cir . 19 86 )

16(h ol di ng th atth e sh ip pe r co ul d n otco m pl ai n t ha t i t d idno t h av e actua l n ot ic e o f a ta rif f pr ov is io n i nc or

po rat edby referen ce i n ash ip pi ng do cum en t p rep aredby the sh ip pe r’s own ag en t). The fact s o f th is cas e are an al og ou s. Nex te l re qu es te d the us e o f th e Mo to ro lam an ife strathe r th ana bi ll of l ad in g a s the sh ip pi ng do cu m en t. We are
no t p ers ua de d b y

th e al le ga ti on s o f de fectin th atdo cu m en t. Werner an d Trans pr o
en te redin to th e BTA, a va li d wri tt enco nt ract , whi ch in co rp or at edW ern er’s t ari ff
an d p ro vi de d tha t ea chsh ip m en t was “ de em edto m ov e o n aun ifo rm st rai gh t b il l o f la di ng ” as co nt ai ne d i n Wern er’s t ari ff. The tar iff li m it edW ern er’s l iabi li ty to $2 00 ,00 0 p er tru ck lo adun le ss Tran sp ro sel ect edhi gh er l iabi li ty. Mo reo ve r, th e ta rif f, in it em 38 5, g av e p reci se in st ru ct io ns to th e sh ip pe r (o r in th is cas e to Tran sp ro , th e sh ip pe r’s ag en t t o s el ectli m it edli ab il it y pu rs ua ntto Kirb y ) as to ho w to sel ecta hi gh er l ev el of l iabi li ty cov erag e. Ther efo re, we co nc lu de th atW ern er
an d Tra ns pr o e nt eredin to a writ te n c on tra ctpro vi di ng th e sh ip pe r wit h a
reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to ch oo se be twee n t wo o r m or e le ve ls of l iabi li ty. As we he ldin Sir en , th is is all th atis requi redun de r th e Carm ackAm en dm en t. The
m an ife stit se lf d idno t n eedto in cl ud e th e ch oi ce o f le ve ls of l iabi li ty andrat es ; tha t ch oi ce was pro vi de d i n asep arat e wri tt enco nt ract , andTran sp ro ch os e n otto in crea se th e li ab il it y

forth is sh ip m en t o r an y

of i ts sh ip m en ts on be ha lf o f Nex te l.
17Thu s, the requi rem en ts of t he Carm ackAm en dm en t, as lai d o utin Sas sy Doll , are

sa ti sf ie d. C. The R at e o f Preju dg m en t In te res t The di stric t co urt’s d eci si on to awardpre jud gm en t i nt eres t i s re vi ewedfor ab us e o f di sc ret io n. In Re In t’l Adm in . Serv ., Inc . v. No rth ern , 40 8 F .3d68 9, 7 09 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . “ Inth e ab se nc e o f a co ntro ll in g s ta tu te , th e ch oi ce o f a rat e at whi chto setth e am ou ntof p reju dg m en t i nt eres t i s al so withi n t he di sc ret io n o f a fed eral co urt.” Id . at 7 10 ; s ee al so Indus . Ris k In su rers v. M.A.N. Gut eh of fnun gs hu tt e Gm

bH, 1 41 F.3d14 34 , 14 47 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). “ Tha t d eci si on is ‘ gu id edby prin ci pl es of r eas on ab le ne ss an d fa irn es s, b y rel ev an t s ta te law, an d by the rel ev an t fi fty-two weekUni te d S ta te s Tre as ury bo ndrat e, whi ch is th e rat e th atfed eral co urts m

us t u se in award in g p os t-ju dg m en t i nt eres t.’” In R e In t’l Adm in . Serv ., Inc ., 40 8 F .3dat 7 10 (qu ot in g In du s. Ri skIns ur ers , 14 1 F .3dat 1 44 7 (ci ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 1 96 1) ). The d is tri ctco urt u se d a s g ui da nc e th e rat e th at 1 0

In Sunderland Marine Mutual Insuranc e Co. v. Weeks Marine Construction Co., 338 1 0 F.3d 1276, 1280 ( 11th Cir. 2003), we he ld, in that admiralty case , that the rate of pre

judgme nt interest that should be a

war ded is the prime r ate during the rele vant period. As evidenc ed by the pre- Sunderland c ase c ited in the text , and other binding pr e-Sunderland ca ses, district courts have long ha d discretion in this Circuit to set the rate of pr ejudgment interest in both maritime and non-maritime conte x ts. See also Kilpatrick Ma rine Piling v. F ireman' s Fund Ins. Co., 795 F.2d 940, 947 (11th Cir. 1986) (holdingthat admiralty courts have discretion in settingthe rate of prejudgment interest). B eca use pane ls prior to the dec ision in S underla nd had held that the choice of a r ate f

or pre judgme nt interest is within the discretion of the district cour t, we nee d not addre ss the binding e ffe ct of Sunderla nd, even in a

maritime ca se. We hold onlythat in this non18fed eral co urts us e in award in g p os t-ju dg m en t i nt eres t. Ace p res en te d n o e vi de nc e

to sh ow t ha t thi s was un fai r or anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Acco rd in gl y , we fin d n o
erro r. III. CONCLUSION Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s en try of s umm ary jud gm en t as to li m it at io n o f li ab il it y in fav orof Wern er. AFFIR MED.

maritime ca se, Sunderland is not binding , and the district cour t did not abuse its discretion.

19