2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-19-2005 

# S & H H ardware v

. Y ellow T ransp Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4591

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" S & H H ar dwar e v

. Y ellow T r an sp Inc " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 15. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/15P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 04- 4591

____________ S & H H A R D W A R E & S U P P L Y C O .,

A ppel l ant

v. YEL LOW TRANSP ORTATI ON, I NC.

____________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D
. C
. N o. : 02- cv- 9055 D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Ti m othyJ
. Savage

____________ A r gued: O ct ober25, 2005 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FI SH E R , R O SE N N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber19, 2005 )2 Fr anci s R ecc hi ut i ( A r gued) V a n g ro ss i & R e c c h u iti 319 Sw ede Str eet N orr i s t ow n, PA 19401 C ouns el f orAppel lant J onathan F. B al l ( A r gued) Paul D
. K eena n J a n s s e n Ke e n a n & Ci a r d i , P
. C. 2005 M arketSt r eet , Sui t e 2050 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ R O S E N N , C ir c u it J u d g e . T h is a p p e a l ra ise s th e im p o rta n c e o f a sim p le r equi r ementof not i ce unde rthe C arm ack A m endmentt o the In ter sta te C o m m e rc e A c t. Ita lso ill u stra tes h o w f a ilu re to compl yw i th a s i m pl e, s t atut oryr equi r ementcan pr ecl ude cons i der at i on of the mer i t s of the under l y i ng cl ai m . T he p r e c i s e i s s u e o n a p p e a l i s wh e th e rth e a p p e l l a n t , S & H H ar dw ar e & Suppl yC om pany( “S & H ”) , compl i ed w i th the C a rm a c k n o tice re q u ire m e n t, allo w in g it t o p u rsu e a c laim to r ecove rforl os s es i ncurr ed w hen appe l l ee Y el l ow3 T r ans por t at i on ( “Y el l ow ”) i m pr oper l ydi vert ed s hi pm ent s of goods cons i gned t o S & H
. S & H s uffe r ed overa mi l l i on dol l ar s i n l os s es w hen one of i t s empl oy ees , St even Schw art z, i n col l abor at i on w i th one orm or e Y el l ow dr i ver s , di vert ed s hi pm ent s t o addr es s es notl i s t ed on the bi l l s of l adi ng or sh ip p in g c o n tra c t, an d n e v e r b e f o re u se d b yS & H a s p o in ts o f d e liv e ry. T he C arm ack A m endmenti m pos es l i abi l i tyon comm on carr i er s fordamages and l os s es t o goods caus ed by th e c a rr ie r i n in te rs ta te s h ip m e n t. 4 9 U .S .C . § 1 4 7 0 6 (a )( 1 ). T he i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons of the C arm ack A m endment r equi r e, as a condi t i on of r ecove ry , thatthe cons i gnee of the g o o d s g iv e n o tice to th e c a rrie r o f d a m a g e s o r lo ss e s w ith in the per i od of t i m e s peci fi ed bythe bi l l of l adi ng governi ng the t erm s of s hi pm entbetw een the part i es , notl es s than ni ne m onths
. See i d. § 14706( e) ; 49 C
. F. R
. § 1005. 2( a)
. T he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o Y el l ow , hol di ng th a t S & H h a d n o t c o m p lie d w ith th e n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t. S & H tim e ly ap p e a le d . W e a f f ir m . I. S & H is a h a rd w a re sto re lo c a ted o n C a sto r A v e n u e in Phi l adel phi a. I ti s ow ned byH ar ol d St ern and oper at ed by hi m and hi s s on, H erbert
. A tthe t i m e of the eve nt s des cr i bed b e lo w , S & H e m p lo y e d S c h w a rtz a n d a u th o riz e d h im to r ece i ve s hi pm ent s di r ect ed t o S & H ati t s s t or e on C as t or A v e n u e o r its n e a rb yw a re h o u se lo c a ted o n K n o rr S tre e t in P h il ad elph ia. S & H is a m em b er o f th e A ce H ard w are4 b u y in g c o n so rtiu m a n d A c e is its f a c to r. A s a re su lt o f

th is a r r a n g e m e n t , v e n d o r s b i l l e d Ac e f o rg o o d s s h i p p e d t o S & H as cons i gnee, and S & H pai d i t s i nvoi ces di r ect l yt o A ce, and nott o t he vendor s . See I n r e Fr eeman, 294 F. 2d 126, 129 ( 3d C i r . 1961) ( “The m odern fac t or. . . i s a fi nanci erw ho gener al l yl ends m oni es and t akes i n r eturn an as s i gnm entof acc ount s r ece i vabl e ors om e others ecur i ty . ”) Y e l l ow i s a truc ki ng c ompa nyw ho s e s hi pmen t s t o S & H w er e governed bythe s t andar d uni form s tr ai ghtbi l l of l adi ng, s etfor th i n 49 C
. F. R
. § 1035 A pp. B , w hi ch pr ovi des fora ni ne- m onth per i od t o fi l e a c l ai m forl os tordamaged goods
. I n t hi s cas e, the goods i nvol ved w er e model tr ai ns m anufa ctur ed byL i onel and tr ans por t ed byY el l ow , cons i gned to S & H a t its p ri n c ip a l b u s in e s s lo c a tio n o n C a s to r A v e n u e . I n t he or di narycour s e of bus i nes s betw een S & H and Y el l ow , Y el l ow dr i ver s w oul d br i ng s hi pm ent s of goods di r ect l yt o t he C as t orA venue l ocat i on, w her e the fr ei ght char ges w oul d be pai d bychec k. T he goods w oul d be unl oaded a tthe r earof the C as t orA venue s t or e, orthe Y el l ow d ri v er w o u ld b e ins tru cted to tak e the m to S & H ’s K n o rr S tr e e t w a re h o u s e f

o r u n lo a d in g . T he r ecor d demonstr at es thats om et i m e i n ear l y2000, S c h wa r t z b e g a n t o p l a c e o r d e r s f o rLi o n e l tr a i n s i n th e n a me of S & H
. H ow ever , thos e tr ai ns w er e neve rdel i ver ed t o the C as t orA venue s t or e. I ns t ead, Y el l ow ’ s dr i vercal l ed Schw art z’ s cel l phone, a numbernotl i s t ed on the bi l l of l adi ng, s hor t l ybefor e del i very , and Schw art z i ns truct ed the dri ver t o d i vertthe shipm ents t o v ari ou s unk no w n locat i on s, al s o notl i s t ed on anybi l l of l adi ng. Schw art z then pai d the f re ig h t c h a rg e s in c a s h
.5 T h e S ter n s w e re u n a w a re o f th is s c h e m e u n til N ovemberof 2000, w hen S & H r ece i ved i nvoi ces fr om A ce f o r la rg e a m o u n ts o f

L io n e l m o d e l train s th a t w e re n o t in its in v e n to ry . S c h w a rtz , o u t f o r a c laim e d ill n e ss , initia lly cl ai m ed thatthe bi l l s w er e the r es ul tof a mi s t ake thathe i n t e n d e d t o c o r r e c t
. Af t e rl e a rn i n g o f

f a c t s wh i c h l e d S & H to b e su sp icio u s o f

S c h w a rtz , S & H h ire d a p riv a te i nves t i gat or . T he i nves t i gat orl earned thatan unauthor i zed s hi pm entof Li onel tr ai ns w as t o be del i ver ed byY el l ow on A p ril 3 , 2 0 0 1 . T h e in v e stig a to r c a lled th e F B I to c o n d u c t a s t i ng oper at i on. S & H al s o not i fi ed C l i ffor d Shaw , a Y el l ow i nves t i gat or , w ho part i ci pat ed i n the s t i ng oper at i on by fol l ow i ng the Y el l ow dr i verthr ough the s tr eet s of Phi l adel phi a. T h e s tin g o p e ra tio n re v e a le d th a t T h o m a s J a n u s z , a Y el l ow truck dr i ver , cal l ed Schw art z on the phone a nd in f o rm e d h im o f

a n im p e n d in g d e liv e ry o f L io n e l tr a in s . Schw art z di r ect ed hi m t o a s t or age f aci l i tyon O xfor d A venue, Phi l adel phi a, and J anus z bypas s ed S & H ’ s C as t orA venue and K norrSt r eetl ocat i ons t ot al l y . W hen Y el l ow ’ s di s pat cher cal l ed J anus z t o as cert ai n hi s l ocat i on, he i nform ed the dr i ver th a t h e w a s u n d e r su rv e ill a n c e . W h e n so in f o rm e d , S c h w a rtz as ked J anus z t o hel p hi m r el oad the truck and de l i veri tt o the Kn o r rS tr e e twa r e h o u s e . Th e r e , h e wa s g r e e t e d b yF BI a g e n ts. T h e sh ip m e n t w a s re f u se d b yS & H a n d u lti m a tely re tu rn e d to L io n e l. In a n in ter v iew w ith th e F B I, Ja n u sz a d m itt e d to h a v in g a c c e p ted a $ 1 0 0 tip f ro m S c h w a rtz o n A p ril 3 , as w e ll as $10 0– $1 50 t i ps on atl eastthree ot her occasi on s. H e al so s t at ed thatSchw art z had gi ven hi m a pow erl aw nm ow eri n the6 p a st. H e d e n ied a n yk n o w led g e th a t S c h w a rtz w a s e n g a g e d in i l l egal act i vi t i es , al though depos i t i on t es t i m onyfr om other dri vers s ho w ed thattheyrecei ved t i ps on l yon rar e occa si on s, and neve ri n exce s s of $20. N onethel es s , Shaw cl ear ed J a n u s z o f

w ro n g d o in g in Y e llo w ’s in te rn a l in v e s tig a tio n . S & H l at eras cert ai ned thats hi pm ent s of Li onel tr ai ns val ued at$1, 646, 703. 38 had bee n i m pr oper l ydi vert ed by S c h w a rt z w ith th e c o o p e ra tio n o f o n e o r m o re Y e llo w d ri v e rs . A s i de fr om the i nvol vementof Y el l ow i nves t i gat or s i n the s e i z u r e o f

th e f i n a l d i v e r t e d s h i p m e n t , n o o n e f r o m S & H a p p e a rs to h a v e c o n tac ted Y e llo w re g a rd in g sp e c if ic s hi pm ent s thatw er e i m pr oper l ydi vert ed. A ccor di ng t o an i nt ernal Y el l ow m emora ndum , A ce H ar dw ar e cont act ed Y el l ow i n or dert o di s put e atl eas tthr ee s hi pm ent s . T he r ecor d, how ever , does notr evea l w hatpor t i on of the t ot al di vert ed s hi pm ent s thes e thr ee s hi pm ent s r epr es ent ed, northe f o rm o f th e c o m m u n ic a tio n b e tw e e n A c e a n d Y e llo w . Schw art z w as s ubs equent l ypr os ecut ed forvi ol at i ons o f f e d e ra l law , an d a lso su e d b yS & H in a se p a ra te c iv il act i on. S & H br oughtthi s act i on agai ns tY el l ow , cl ai m i ng Y el l ow ’ s l i abi l i tyforthe mi s s i ng s hi pm ent s beca us e they w e re n e v e r d e liv e re d to th e a d d re s s o n th e b ill o f la d in g . Y el l ow s ubs equent l ym oved fors um m aryj udgm enton O ct ober2, 2003, ar gui ng thatS & H had fa i l ed t o s at i s fythe not i ce r equi r ementof the C arm ack A m endment , and w as th e re f o re p re c lu d e d f

ro m re c o v e ri n g f

o r t h e lo s t s h ip m e n ts
. II. S & H conce ded thati thad fa i l ed t o compl yw i th the not i ce r equi r ement
. I tar gued thatY el l ow s houl d be es t opped7 f ro m a ss e rtin g th e n o tice re q u ire m e n t as a b a r to liab ili ty b e c a u se it h a d a c tu a l n o tice o f th e d iv e rte d d e liv e rie s d u e to i t s i nvol vementi n t he i nves t i gat i on, and var i ous comm uni cat i ons betw een S & H and Y el l ow and A ce a nd Y el l ow . S & H al s o ar gues thates t oppel s houl d be appl i ed beca us e Y el l ow i nt ent i onal l yobs truct ed the i nves t i gat i on and w a s n o t p re

ju d ic e d b yth e la c k o f

f o rm a l n o tic e . I n ent er i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof Y el l ow , the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed thatfi l i ng a w r i t t en cl ai m w as a s tr i ct c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n tt o th e f i l i n g o f a l a ws u i ta n d th a tS & H had notqual i fi ed forthe es t oppel exce pt i on beca us e i thad not s h o wn th a tYe l l o w m a d e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s u p o n wh i c h S & H reli ed in f

ail ing to f

il e a w ri tt en claim
. T h e D istri ct C o u rt not ed thatt o pr evai l , S & H had t o es t abl i s h m or e than Y ell o w ’s ac tual k n o w ledg e o f a p o tential claim
. Y ell o w ’s p a rticip a tio n in th e in v e stig a tio n c o m b in e d w ith th e e m a il fr om A ce a boutthr ee di vert ed s hi pm ent s , and the bi l l of l adi ng fr om the A pr i l 3, 2001, r eturned del i veryw i th the not e: “R efus ed, di d notor derthi s ! ” w er e nots uffi ci entt o s at i s fyor excus e S & H fr om the not i ce r equi r ement
. T he D i s tr i ct C our tdet erm i ned thatther e w as no i s s ue of f actr egar di ng S & H ’s f a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t. O n appea l , S & H ar gued thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o Y el l ow beca us e Y el l ow s houl d have be en es t opped fr om as s ert i ng the not i ce re q u ire m e n t b e c a u se it h a d a c tu a l k n o w led g e o f th e f a c ts gi vi ng r i s e t o t he cl ai m , i ncl udi ng “s ubs t ant i al w r i t t en document at i on conce rni ng the cl ai m , ” and be caus e Y el l ow had part i ci pat ed i n and frus tr at ed the i nves t i gat i on. Y el l ow ar gued, i n turn, thatS & H had fa i l ed t o adduce s uffi ci ent8 evi dence t o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tr egar di ng w h e th e r it sh o u ld b e e sto p p e d f ro m a ss e rtin g th e c laim r equi r ement
. T hus , i tcont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad not err ed i n di s m i s s i ng S & H ’ s cl ai m forfai l ur e t o s at i s fythe n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t. III
. T hi s C our thas appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l u n d er 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1
. W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gr ant i ng of s um m aryj udgm entde novo, vi ew i ng the evi dence in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le to S & H , th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y . U n it ed S tat es v . D iebo ld, I n c., 3 6 9 U
. S
. 6 5 4 , 6 5 5 (19 6 2 ); M B I A I ns . C orp. v. R oy al I ndem. C o. , 426 F. 3d 204, 209 ( 3d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). A. T he C arm ack A m endmentpr ovi des forl i abi l i tyof comm on carr i er s fordamage t o orl os s of goods dur i ng s hi pm ent
. See 49 U
. S. C
. § 14706( a) ( 1)
. U nderthe im p le m e n tin g re g u la tio n s o f th e C a rm a c k A m e n d m e n t, a cl ai m antm us tfi l e not i ce of l os s ordamage w i th the ca rr i er w ith in th e tim e s p e c if

ie d o n th e b ill o f

la d in g , 4 9 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 5
. 2 ( a ) , wh i c h ma yn o tb e l e s s th a n n i n e mo n th s , 4 9 U. S
. C. § 14706( e) ( 1)
. I n addi t i on t o bei ng fi l ed w i thi n the pr oper a m o u n t o f

tim e , a p ro p e r n o tice m u st:

· b e c o m m u n ica ted in w riting o r, w h e re a g re e d to b y t h e p a r t i e s , e l e c tr o n i c a l l y;

· cont ai n fac t s s uffi ci entt o i dent i fythe damaged o r lo st s h ip m e n t;

· a s s e r tl i a b i l i ty f

o ra l l e g e d l o s s , d a m a g e , i n j u ry,I n thi s cas e, t he D i s tr i ctC o u rt n o ted that“[t ] he fi l i ng of a 1 w r i t t en cl ai m w i thi n the pr es cr ibed p eri od i s a s tr i ctcondi t i on p re c e d e n t to th e f

ili n g o f a law su it. ” S & H H a rd w a re & S u p p ly C o . v . Y e l l o w T r a n s p . , I n c . , N o . C i v . A
- 0 2
- C V
- 9 0 5 5 , 2 0 0 4 WL 1 5 5 1 7 3 0 , at * 2 (E .D
. P a . Ju ly 8 , 2 0 0 4 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt d id notm ent i on the s ubs t ant i al compl i ance s t andar d. 9 ordel ay ; and

· d e m a n d p a ym e n t o f a sp e c if ied o r d e ter m in a b le a m o u n to f

m o n e y. 4 9 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 5 .2 (b ). C our t s have c ons trued the w r i t t en cl ai m r equi r ement l i ber al l y , how ever , and “the s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng s u f f i c i e n c yi s o n e o f

s u b s t a n t i a l p e r f

o r ma n c e . ” I n s . Co
. o f

N. A m . v . G
. I. T ruc k ing C o . , 1 F
. 3 d 9 0 3 , 9 0 6 (9th C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ); T rep el v. R o ad w ayE x p ress, 19 4 F
. 3 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 2

– 7 1 3 (6th C ir
. 1999)
. T he crux of the not i ce i s w hetheri tappr i s es the

1 c a rrie r o f th e b a sis f

o r th e c laim a n d th a t re im b u rse m e n t w ill be s ought
. I ns . C o. of N
. A m . , 1 F. 3d at906. T he purpos e of the w r i t t en cl ai m r equi r ementi s t o i ns ur e thatthe ca rr i erm ay p ro m p tlyin v e stig a te c laim s, a n d “ n o t to p e rm it th e c a rrie r to e s c a p e l i a b i l i ty . ” I d
. a t9 0 7 ; a c c o r d T h o mp s o n v . J a me s G. M c C a rric k C o ., 2 0 5 F .2 d 8 9 7 , 9 0 1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 5 3 ) (c laim r equi r ements at i s fi ed w hen w r i t t en document s “s uppl i ed su f f icie n t in f o rm a tio n u p o n w h ich a p ro m p t an d c o m p lete in v e s tig a tio n [ c o u ld ] b e b a s e d ” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ))
. O r al oractual not i ce i s nots uffi ci entt o s at i s fythe10 s ubs t ant i al compl i ance r equi r ement ; r ather , s om e form of w ri tte n n o tic e is re q u ir e d . P e ri n i- N o rt h R iv e r A s s o c . v . C . & O . R y ., 5 6 2 F .2 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 2 -2 7 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 7 ) (c iti n g S t. L oui s , I r on M ount ai n & S. R y . C o. v. St arbi r d, 243 U
. S. 592, 605 ( 1917) )
. C our t s have c ons trued fl exi bl ythe w r i t i ng re q u ir e m e n t. S e e , e .g ., A m . S yn th e tic R u b b e r C o rp . v . L . & N
. R
. R
. , 422 F. 2d 462, 468 ( 6th C i r . 1970) ( the cl ai m ant sa tisf ied th e re q u ire m e n t b ysh o w in g th e d o c u m e n ts to s hi ppi ng offi ci al s r atherthan fi l i ng them); T hom ps on, 205 F. 2d at901 ( the w r i t i ng r equi r ementhad bee n s at i s fi ed w hen the cl ai m ants entthe ca rr i era “s t at ementof pr ot es t , ” w hi ch s peci fi ed the damaged s hi pm ent s , i ndi cat ed thatpaym ent w o u ld b e d is p u te d , a n d g a v e a n e s tim a te o f d a m a g e s ). I n t hi s cas e, the onl yw r i t t en comm uni cat i on s ubm i t t ed byS & H t o Y el l ow w as the r eturned del i verys l i p of A pr i l 3, 2001, w i th t he handw r i t t en not at i on “R efus ed, di d notor der th is !” F u rt h e rm o re , S & H re tu rn e d th is s h ip m e n t to L io n e l. E v e n if it d id su f

f e r d a m a g e s, th is c o m m u n ica tio n c o u ld o n ly be s uffi ci entt o s at i s fythe not i ce r equi r ementforthat part i cul ars hi pm entbeca us e i tdi d noti dent i fyanyother s hi pm ent s . T he r egul at i ons , how ever , s peci fi cal l ynot e that “no t at i on s of sho rt age o r dam age, orbo th, on frei gh tbil l s, del i veryr ece i pt s ” ar e nots uffi ci entnot i ces of a c l ai m . See 49 C
. F. R
. § 1005. 2( c)
. T her efor e, the del i veryr ece i ptdoes not s a tis f yth e n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t e v e n f o r t h a t s h ip m e n t. I n a d d i t i o n t o th e d e l i v e ryr e c e i p t , th e r e wa s s o me comm uni cat i on byA ce H ar dw ar e w i th Y el l ow r egar di ng th re e c o n tes ted sh ip m e n ts. B e c a u se th e f a c to rin g re latio n sh ip betw een A ce a nd S & H i s one of a gency , w e not e, w i thout11 det erm i ni ng the mer i t s of the ar gum ent , thata comm uni cat i on f ro m A c e o n b e h a lf

o f S & H c o u ld p o ten tiallyb e a ttribu ted to S & H forpurpos es of eva l uat i ng w hetheri ts at i s fi ed the n o tice re q u ire m e n t. H o w e v e r, S & H d id n o t m a k e th is sp e c if ic a rg u m e n t in th e D istric t C o u rt, an d it also f a iled to pr oduce a nyevi dence of the form the comm uni cat i on betw een A ce a nd Y el l ow t ook. S & H onl ypr oduced i ndi r ectevi dence o f th e c o m m u n ic a tio n in th e f o rm o f in te rn a l Y e llo w e m a ils
. I n addi t i on, thos e emai l s appea rt o di s put e onl ythe fr ei ght c h a rg e s , a n d n o t th e v a lu e o f th e s h ip p e d g o o d s th e m s e lv e s . S & H h a s th e b u rd e n o f

p ro o f o n th e iss u e o f

w h e th e r it sa tisf ied th e n o tice re q u ire m e n t. T h e re f o re , this c o m m u n ica tio n f

ro m A c e p ro v id e s a c tu a l n o tice a t b e st a n d is nots uffi ci entt o s at i s fythe not i ce r equi r ement
. Per i ni

- N or th, 5 6 2 F .2 d a t 2 7 2
. W e ca n di s coverno otherw r i t t en comm uni cat i ons b e tw e e n S & H a n d Y e l l o w r e g a r d i n g th e l o s ts h i p m e n t s . We ar e cons tr ai ned t o concl ude, ther efor e, thatS & H di d not su b sta n tiallyc o m p lyw ith th e C a rm a c k n o tice re q u ire m e n t, despit e i t s hug e l oss. B. S & H al s o ar gues thatY el l ow s houl d be es t opped fr om as s ert i ng the not i ce r equi r ementbeca us e i thad ac tual n o tice . M o re o v e r, S & H a rg u e s th a t Y e llo w “ p a rticip a ted in a n d f ru s tr a t e d th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . ” Ac c o r d i n g t o S & H, Y el l ow obs truct ed the i nves t i gat i on beca us e of i t s “s uppos ed i nab i l i tyt o fo l l ow a l arge truck i n P hil adelphi a” and becau se i t s di s pat cheri m pr oper l yi nform ed the dr i verthathe w as12 u n d er su rve il lanc e. S & H also arg u es th at Y ell o w ’s i nves t i gat or s cl ear ed Y el l ow empl oy ees of w r ongdoi ng t oo h asti ly , n o tw ith stan d ing “a n inf ere n ce . . . that Y ell o w ’s agent s w er e both act i ve part i ci pant s i n Schw art z’ s theft s and w er e cove r i ng up thati nvol vementt o pr ot ectY el l ow . ” W e have hel d thatactual know l edge i s nota s uffi ci ent bas i s on w hi ch t o bas e es t oppel unl es s ther e i s an i nducement nott o fi l e ac compani ed byr el i ance . Per i ni

- N or th, 562 F. 2d at 27 2– 27 3; c ompa r e H e c kl e rv. Cm ty . H e a l th Se r vs . , 46 7 U. S. 5 1 , 5 9 (19 8 4 ) (no ti n g that the h all m ark s o f e stop p el are r eas onabl e r el i ance on a mi s r epr es ent at i on of fa ctthati nduces th e i n j u r e d p a r tyt o c h a n g e h i s p o s i t i o n f o rth e w o r s e )
. We have l i m i t ed the appl i cat i on of es t oppel t o excus e the not i ce r e q u i r e me n tt o c a s e s i n wh i c h “ th e c a rr i e r ’ s c o n d u c ti n s o me w ayi nduced the cl ai m ant ’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e. ” Per i ni

- N or th, 562 F. 2d at272. Forexampl e, w hen the ca rr i er ’ s r epr es ent at i ve gave a n or al w ai ver , w hi ch the ca rr i ers ubs equent l yr at i fi ed by conduct , the ca r r i ercoul d be es t opped fr om as s ert i ng the n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t a s a b a r t o lia b ility. Id . a t 2 7 4
. Two o th e rc i r c u i t s h a v e e mp l o y e d e s t o p p e l i n th e s a me fas hi on. T he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe Second C i r cui thel d t hatw hen the ca rr i erpr ovi ded an i m pr oper addr es s t o t he cl ai m ant , the ca rr i ercoul d notr ai s e fi l i ng err or a s a d e f e n se w h e n th a t er ro r c o n sis ted o f se n d in g th e c laim to the w r ong addr es s . L ehi gh V al l eyR
. R
. v. St at e of Russ
. , 21 F .2 d 3 9 6 (2 d C ir. 1 9 2 7 ). T h e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e F if

th C irc u it d e c lin e d to a p p lye sto p p e l to p re v e n t a carr i erfr om as s ert i ng the r equi r ementthata not i ce s peci fythe amount of the cl ai m beca us e the ca rr i erhad di r ect l ys ol i ci t ed13 m o re s p e c if

ic s ta te m e n ts o f

th e a m o u n t o f

th e c la im
. Sal zs t ei n v. B eki ns V an Li nes , 993 F. 2d 1187, 1191–1192 ( 5th C i r . 1993) ( hol di ng nonethel es s thatthe cons i gnee ha d p ro v id e d th e c a rrie r w ith a d e ter m in a b le a m o u n t su f f icie n t to sati sfythe n o ti ce req u ir em en t)
. S & H a sk s u s to e x p a n d th e e sto p p e l ex c e p tio n to th is cas e bas ed on the al l egat i on thatY el l ow ’ s dr i verw as i nvol ved i n t he theftand i t s as s ert i on thatY el l ow obs truct ed the invest i gati on . V i ew i ng the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o S & H , how ever , w e dec l i ne t o cr eat e a ne w g ro u n d s f

o r in v o c a tio n o f

th e e sto p p e l d o c trin e . Y e llo w d id n o t sa yo r d o a n yth in g to lea d S & H to b e liev e th a t itw o u ld notneed t o m eetthe cl ai m fi l i ng r equi r ement
. Y el l ow di d not t el l S & H i tw as notnece s s aryt o fi l e a c l ai m and di d notgi ve S & H f a u lty in f o rm a tio n a s to th e p ro p e r m e th o d o f f ilin g . W e c a n n o t, th e re f

o re , ap p lyth e d o c trin e o f e sto p p e l in th is c a se to e x c u se S & H f

ro m th e n o tice re q u ire m e n t. P e rin iN or th, 562 F. 2d at272–273. S & H a lso u rg e s th is C o u rt to a d o p t w h a t itsta tes is th e ru le o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e v e n th C irc u it, th a t th e n o tice re q u ire m e n t is in a p p lica b le to c o n tes ted c laim s. S & H a p p e a rs to h a v e re a d th e S e v e n th C irc u it’s d e c isio n s to o b ro a d ly . A lth o u g h th e S e v e n th C irc u it hel d t hatthe r equi r ement s of 49 C
. F. R
. § 1005. 2 di d not contr ol the f

o r m o f th e n o tice re q u ire d f

o r c o n tes ted c laim s, it di d notexcus e the cons i gnee f r om the dutyt o pr ovi de suffici ent not i ce. S ee W i sc. P acking C o. v. Ind. R efri g. L i nes, 618 F. 2d 441, 445 ( 7th C i r . 1980)
. R ather , the C our thel d that a l ett er fr om the cons i gnee t o the ca rr i erthats t at ed thatthe14 cons i gnee ha d r ej ect ed a de fec t i ve s hi pm ent , i dent i fi ed the goods byr efe r ence , and s etfor th a form al s t at ementof the damage, w as s uffi ci entnot i ce t o s at i s fythe r equi r ement s of th e C a rm a c k A m e n d m e n t. I d . a t 4 4 4

– 4 4 5
. It is se ttl e d law th a t th e n o tice re q u ire m e n t ap p lies to al l cl ai m s agai ns tcarr i er s forl os s es . See Per i ni

- N or th, 562 F
. 2d at27 0 (apply i ng the n oti ce requir em ent t o clai m against carr i eroverdamaged m er chandi s e butfi ndi ng es t oppel appr opr i at e) ; acc or d T r epel , 194 F. 3d at711–713; I ns . C o. of N
. A m . , 1 F. 3d at906; Sal zs t ei n, 993 F. 2d at1190 n. 2; N ed ll o y d L ines v . H arris T ran sp . , 9 2 2 F
. 2 d 9 0 5 , 9 0 7 (1st C ir
. 1991) ; Pathw ayB el l ow s , I nc. v. B l anche t t e, 630 F. 2d 900, 904 ( 2d C i r . 1980)
. A s a mat t erof publ i c pol i cy , the not i ce r equi r ementi s i nt ended t o pr ovi de ca rr i er s w i th an o p p o rtu n ityto in v e stig a te c laim s, so it rea c h e s its f u ll u s e f u ln e s s p re c is e ly w h e n a c a rr ie r w is h e s to c o n te s t a c la im
. C f. I ns . C o. of N
. A m . , 1 F. 3d at906–907. I n t hi s cas e, w i th the exc ept i on of the A pr i l 3, 2001 d e l i v e r y , wi th o u ts o m e n o t i c e o f wh i c h s h i p m e n t s S & H s us pect ed w er e di vert ed, Y el l ow had no w ayof as cert ai ni ng w hi ch del i ver i es S & H w oul d cont es t
. I n everycas e i n w hi ch Schw art z di vert ed a de l i very , he pai d the fr ei ghtchar ges and sig n e d o f f o n th e d e liv e ry . T h u s, Y e llo w h a d n o re a so n to su sp e c t an yth in g w a s a m iss . B yth e tim e S & H f iled its su it, i tw as D ece m ber , 2002, m or e than a y earand a ha l f af t erthe las t d iv e rte d sh ip m e n t in A p ril, 2 0 0 1 . A t th is p o in t, i t w o u ld h a v e b e e n v e ryd if

f icu lt fo r Y e llo w to c o n d u c t an a d e q u a te in v e stig a tio n to d e ter m in e w h e th e r its d riv e rs w e re e n g a g e d in w ro n g d o in g . S & H ’s f a ilu re to p ro v id e Y e llo w w ith15 adequa t e not i ce mayal s o have c ontr i but ed t o the truncat ed natur e of i t s i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on, w hi ch di d notfi nd any w r ongdoi ng among i t s dr i ver s , al though the evi dence demonstr at es thatJ anus z, ata mi ni m um , had r eas on t o s us pect th a t S c h w a rt z w a s e n g a g e d in w ro n g d o in g . Y el l ow ’ s al l eged obs truct i on of the i nves t i gat i on does notpr ovi de a pr operbas i s upon w hi ch t o bas e appl i cat i on of e sto p p e l in th is c a se . S & H n e v e r p ro v id e d Y e llo w w ith s uffi ci enti nform at i on upon w hi ch t o pr ocee d w i th an in v e s tig a tio n . C o m p a re In s . C o . o f N . A m ., 1 F .3 d a t 9 0 7 n .2
. T her efor e, i tw oul d notbe equi t abl e t o appl ythe es t oppel exce pt i on her e. See Per i ni

- N or th, 562 F. 2d at270 ( “Local rul es of es t oppel m aynotbe appl i ed s o as t o thw artthe purpos es of fe der al s t atut es . T he conve r s e i s al s o true: the d o ctri n e sh o u ld b e u sed w h en iten h an ce s the statu tory purpos e. ”)
. A ccor di ngl y , w e ar e compel l ed t o r ej ectthe es t oppel exce pt i on t o pr eventY el l ow fr om i nvoki ng the n o tice re q u ire m e n t. III
. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ct C ou rtw i l l be af

fi rm ed. E ach p artyt o b ear i t s ow n co st s.