Source: http://cabadvantage.com/articles/category/cases-from-bits/c122-volume-6-edition-8/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 13:06:32+00:00

Document:
TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant and Respondent.
In this case, we consider the meaning of an exclusionary clause in a comprehensive general liability (CGL) insurance policy that excludes injuries caused by the “discharge, dispersal, release or escape of pollutants.” Specifically, we are asked to determine whether that clause, a standard pollution exclusion clause, applies to exclude injury to a tenant resulting from a landlord’s allegedly negligent use of pesticides on his property. We conclude that in order for an exclusionary clause to effectively exclude coverage, it ” ‘must be conspicuous, plain and clear’ ” (Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 271, 54 Cal.Rptr. 104, 419 P.2d 168), and that the pollution exclusion in question does not plainly and clearly exclude ordinary acts of negligence involving toxic chemicals such as pesticides. Accordingly, we reverse the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Jennifer Denzin was a tenant in MacKinnon’s apartment building. She requested MacKinnon to spray to eradicate yellow jackets at the apartment building. MacKinnon hired a pest control company, Antimite Associates, Inc. (Antimite), to exterminate the yellow jackets. Antimite treated the apartment building for yellow jackets on several occasions in 1995 and 1996. On May 19, 1996, Denzin died in MacKinnon’s apartment building.
Denzin’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against MacKinnon, Antimite, and other defendants. They alleged that on or about May 13, 1996, defendants negligently failed to inform Denzin that her apartment was to be sprayed with “dangerous chemicals,” and failed to evacuate her, as a result of which she died from pesticide exposure. MacKinnon tendered his defense to Truck Insurance under the CGL insurance policy.
On June 3, 1998, Truck Insurance sent MacKinnon a letter advising that it had concluded that the pollution exclusion precluded coverage for the Denzin action and therefore Truck Insurance would be withdrawing its defense within 30 days. Truck Insurance later extended the withdrawal date to July 20, 1998.
In June 1998, MacKinnon retained counsel to represent him in the Denzin action. MacKinnon, through his counsel, settled the Denzin action for $10,000 and then filed the instant insurance coverage action, claiming Truck Insurance owed MacKinnon a duty to defend and indemnify him in the Denzin action. MacKinnon’s action asserted causes of action for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Truck Insurance moved for summary judgment on MacKinnon’s coverage claims on the ground the pollution exclusion contained in the insurance policy issued by Truck Insurance to MacKinnon, precluded coverage for the Denzin suit. MacKinnon opposed the motion. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the following findings: (1) the Denzin action alleged the decedent died as a result of exposure to a pesticide used to eradicate yellow jackets at her apartment building; (2) the pollution exclusion in the Truck Insurance policy was clear and unambiguous; (3) there was no potential for coverage for the Denzin action because the injuries alleged in the Denzin complaint are excluded from coverage by the pollution exclusion; and (4) because there was no potential for coverage, MacKinnon’s breach of the good faith covenant cause of action also fails.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It too found the clause unambiguous as applied to MacKinnon’s claim, citing several cases from other jurisdictions giving the exclusion a broad reading. We granted review.
In determining whether a summary judgment motion was properly granted, “we review the trial court’s decision de novo, applying the rule that ‘[a] defendant is entitled to summary judgment if the record establishes as a matter of law that none of the plaintiff’s asserted causes of action can prevail.’ ” (Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 279, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537, 885 P.2d 950.) The trial court’s principal ground for granting summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal’s principal ground for affirming the trial court, was a determination that the pollution exclusion found in MacKinnon’s policy excluded coverage of Denzin’s wrongful death complaint. As discussed below, interpretation of policy language is a question of law. We therefore must determine, de novo, whether the pollution exclusion was properly interpreted by these courts.
In order to understand the meaning of the pollution exclusion, some historical background is useful. The Illinois Supreme Court’s comprehensive review of this history in Koloms, supra, 177 Ill.2d 473, 227 Ill.Dec. 149, 687 N.E.2d 72, merits extensive quotation: “The events leading up to the insurance industry’s adoption of the pollution exclusion are ‘well-documented and relatively uncontroverted.’ [Citation.] Prior to 1966, the standard-form CGL policy provided coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by an ‘accident.’ [Citations.] The term ‘accident,’ however, was not defined in the policy. As a result, courts throughout the country were called upon to define the term, which they often interpreted in a way as to encompass pollution- related injuries. In response, the insurance industry revised the CGL policy in 1966 and changed the former ‘accident’-based policy to an ‘occurrence’-based policy. The new policy specifically defined an ‘occurrence’ as ‘an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in bodily injury and property damage that was neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.’ [Citation.] Despite these changes, courts continued to construe the policy to cover damages resulting from long-term, gradual exposure to environmental pollution…..
“In the wake of these events, the insurance industry became increasingly concerned that the 1966 occurrence-based policies were ‘tailor-made’ to cover most pollution-related injuries. To that end, changes were suggested, and the industry proceeded to draft what was to eventually become the pollution exclusion….
B. Arguments For and Against a Narrow Interpretation of the Pollution Exclusion Clause.
The unreasonableness of Truck Insurance’s interpretation becomes clear when its full implications are considered. Virtually any substance can act under the proper circumstances as an “irritant or contaminant.” (See City of Pittsburg, Kans., supra, 768 F.Supp. at p. 1470.) The court in Pipefitters, supra, 976 F.2d at page 1043 stated: “Without some limiting principle, the pollution exclusion clause would extend far beyond its intended scope, and lead to some absurd results.” The hypothetical allergic reaction to pool chlorine, proposed by the Pipefitters court, illustrates this absurdity. Chlorine certainly contains irritating properties that would cause the injury. Its dissemination throughout a pool may be literally described as a dispersal or discharge. Our research reveals no court or commentator that has concluded such an incident would be excluded under the pollution exclusion. The response of two leading insurance industry attorneys has simply been to state that “there are no decisions reporting denials arising from … swimming pool chlorine under the [pollution] [e]xclusion.” (Shelley & Mason, supra, 33 Tort & Ins. L.J. at p. 772.) Truck Insurance’s counsel took a similar position at oral argument.
Other such hypotheticals can be imagined. The application of iodine onto a cut through an eyedropper may be literally characterized as a discharge or release of an irritant. Truck Insurance’s interpretation would therefore bar coverage for injury caused by the misapplication of iodine, or its application on someone who was hypersensitive or has an allergic reaction. A child’s accidental ingestion of a pesticide or other toxic substance negligently left in an empty soft drink bottle would be barred. Yet few if any would think of these injuries as arising from “pollution” in any recognizable sense of that term.
Our conclusion that Truck Insurance’s interpretation is overly broad is bolstered by a closer examination of the connotations of the terms “discharge, dispersal, release or escape” in the context of the present case. “A ‘release’ is defined as ‘the act of liberating or freeing: discharge from restraint.’ ” (Webster’s 3d New Internat. Dict. (2002) p.1917.) An “escape” is defined as an “evasion of or deliverance from what confines, limits, or holds.” (Id. at p. 774.) These terms connote some sort of freedom from containment, and it would be unusual to speak of the normal, intentional application of pesticides as a “release” or “escape” of pesticides.
Limiting the scope of the pollution exclusion to injuries arising from events commonly thought of as pollution, i.e. environmental pollution, also appears to be consistent with the choice of terms “discharge, dispersal, release or escape.” As one court has observed: “The drafters’ utilization of environmental law terms of art (‘discharge,’ ‘dispersal,’ … ‘release,’ or ‘escape’ of pollutants) reflects the exclusion’s historical objective–avoidance of liability for environmental catastrophes related to intentional industrial pollution.” (RSJ, Inc., supra, 926 S.W.2d at p. 681; see also Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Jabar, supra, 188 F.3d at p. 30; Center for Creative Studies, supra, 871 F.Supp. at pp. 944-945; Koloms, supra, 227 Ill.Dec. 149, 687 N.E.2d at pp. 81-82.) It may be an overstatement to declare that “discharge, dispersal, release or escape,” by themselves, are environmental law terms of art. But, as discussed above, these terms, used in conjunction with “pollutant,” commonly refer to the sort conventional environmental pollution at which the pollution exclusion was primarily targeted.
Finally, an interpretation limiting the exclusion to environmental pollution appears reasonable in light of the purpose of CGL policies–which “is ‘to provide the insured with the broadest spectrum of protection against liability for unintentional and unexpected personal injury or property damage arising out of the conduct of the insured’s business.’ ” (City of Pittsburg, Kans., supra, 768 F.Supp. at p. 1468, fn. 5, quoting Peters, Insurance Coverage for Superfund Liability: A Plain Meaning Approach to the Pollution Exclusion Clause (1987) 27 Washburn L.J. 161, 166.) On the other hand, Truck Insurance’s interpretation would fundamentally undermine that purpose by cutting a broad and arbitrary swath through CGL protections, excluding virtually all injuries involving substances that cause harm. Neither the language nor the historical purpose of the pollution exclusion supports such a drastic contraction of CGL policy coverage.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming summary judgment on Truck Insurance’s behalf is reversed.
WE CONCUR: GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, and BROWN, JJ.
FN1. The two published Court of Appeal cases addressing the current pollution exclusion concern instances of traditional environmental industrial pollution, which neither side disputes is within the scope of coverage. (Legarra v. Federated Mutual Ins. Co. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1472, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 101 [groundwater contamination from petroleum plant]; Titan Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 457, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 476 [groundwater contamination from manufacturing plant].) The same is true for federal cases applying California law. (See East Quincy Services District v. Continental Ins. Co. (E.D.Cal.1994) 864 F.Supp. 976, 979-980; Staefa Control-System, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. (N.D.Cal.1994) 847 F.Supp. 1460, as amended (1994) 875 F.Supp. 656 [groundwater contamination from former manufacturing plant]; Hydro Systems, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co. (C.D.Cal.1989) 717 F.Supp. 700 [hydrocarbon emissions from a manufacturing plant], affd. (1991) 929 F.2d 472 [groundwater contamination from sewage-borne bacteria].) These cases do not consider the primary issue in this case–whether injuries outside the realm of such traditional forms of pollution are barred from coverage by the pollution exclusion.
FN4. As one court has observed: “It is not altogether clear that the conspicuous and plain and clear requirements [for clauses limiting coverage] apply unless the exclusion ‘disappoints the reasonable expectations’ of the insured. Some cases couple the two statements in such a way as to suggest that only disappointed expectations will activate the conspicuous, plain and clear requirements. [Citations.] On the other hand, other decisions appear to require exclusions to comply with these requirements without any finding that implementation of the exclusion would ‘disappoint the reasonable expectations’ of the insured. [Citations.] We can imagine exclusions which are so consistent with the scope of coverage an ordinary policyholder expects that it would be unnecessary if not redundant to impose special requirements these clauses be conspicuous and plain and clear. Nonetheless many, and perhaps most, exclusionary clauses by their very nature deny coverage that consumers otherwise would personally anticipate to be provided under the policy.” (Ponder v. Blue Cross of Southern California (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 709, 720-721, 193 Cal.Rptr. 632, italics in original, fn. omitted.) We have no occasion to decided whether certain exclusionary clauses are so consistent with policy coverage language that it would be “unnecessary if not redundant” to impose a requirement that the clauses be conspicuous, plain and clear. As explained below, such is not the case with the pollution exclusion at issue here.
FN6. In fact, the Allnews search of “pesticide within the same sentence as discharge” for the last 10 years produced almost no evidence that the word “discharge” is used to describe the normal application of pesticides. Of 246 search results in which some form of “discharge” was used as a verb with “pesticide,” only in two instances was “discharge” used to describe normal pesticide application, and then only in the context of a discussion of insurance or legal matters. (See Shaheen, Be Practical When Purchasing Policies, 68 Pest Control No. 11 (Nov. 1, 2000) p. 48); Federal Court Refuses to Halt West Nile Virus Pesticide Program 12 Real Estate/Environmental Liability News, No. 3 (Oct. 27, 2000).
FN7. Against the position that the exclusion applies only to environmental pollution, amicus curiae Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association points to the elimination of the limitation that the pollution be discharged, etc. “into or upon land, the atmosphere or any watercourse or body of water” from the current pollution exclusion, and its replacement with “at or from the insured location” or a similar phrase. Of course, substantial environmental pollution may occur at or on an insured’s property. (See, e.g., Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 857, 861, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107, 959 P.2d 265.) The purpose of eliminating “into or upon land” is unclear and by no means unambiguously supports the insurer’s position in the present case.
Before MURPHY, BALDOCK, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Appellee, Mercer Transportation Co. (“Mercer”) brought a lawsuit against appellant, Greentree Transportation Co. (“Greentree”) seeking compensation for the contents of a tractor-trailer truck which were damaged in a one-vehicle accident. The district court granted summary judgment for Mercer, concluding that Greentree was liable for the damage because its placards and other identification were displayed on the truck at the time of the accident. The district court concluded that the liability issue was controlled by this court’s holding in Rodriguez v. Ager, 705 F.2d 1229 (10th Cir.1983). The district court also granted summary judgment to Mercer on the issue of damages. Greentree then brought this appeal. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on liability and vacate the district court’s order granting summary judgment on damages.
On January 29, 1997, Mobile Tool International, Inc. (“Mobile”) contacted Mercer, a flatbed carrier and licensed transportation broker, to arrange transportation for a load of six aerial lifts from Colorado to Massachusetts. The next day, Mercer brokered the load to McClellan Enterprises, Inc. (“McClellan”). Mercer’s load quote/confirmation sheet designated McClellan as the carrier and Larry Lanxon (“Lanxon”) as the driver. On January 2, 1997, however, Lanxon had entered into a leasing agreement with Greentree. Pursuant to the terms of this lease agreement, Lanxon permanently leased his tractor- trailer to Greentree and drove the equipment for Greentree. The parties dispute whether McClellan brokered the Mobile shipment to Greentree or made arrangements directly with Lanxon.
Mobile prepared a bill of lading associated with the shipment of the aerial lifts. The bill of lading was signed by Lanxon and the shipment was then tendered to him. On January 31, 1997, the aerial lifts were damaged when Lanxon was involved in a one-vehicle accident. At the time of the accident, the truck bore Greentree’s placards which feature Greentree’s name, logo, and license numbers.
Mobile filed a claim against Mercer for the full value of the damaged aerial lifts. Mercer settled the claim for $150,453.12. As part of the settlement, Mobile assigned to Mercer its right to pursue any claims against McClellan, Greentree, and Lanxon arising out of the loss of the property. Mercer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against Greentree and McClellan pursuant to the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act (the “Carmack Amendment”), 49 U.S.C. § 14706. [FN1] Mercer asserted three claims in its complaint. The first claim arose under 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a) and was asserted by Mercer as Mobile’s assignee against both McClellan and Greentree. The third claim, a claim for indemnification pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 14706(b), was asserted only against Greentree by Mercer in its individual capacity.
FN1. McClellan filed a cross-claim against Greentree and a third- party complaint against Lanxon. McClellan’s cross-claim was dismissed by stipulation of the parties. McClellan’s third-party complaint against Lanxon was dismissed by the court.
Mercer settled with McClellan for $82,988.54. [FN2] Mercer and Greentree then filed cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to both liability and damages. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mercer on the issue of liability, concluding that Greentree was liable for the damage to the aerial lifts because Lanxon’s tractor-trailer bore Greentree’s logo at the time of the accident. The district court relied on this court’s decision in Rodriguez v. Ager, 705 F.2d 1229 (10th Cir.1983), as controlling precedent for its conclusion.
FN2. In addition, Mercer assigned its right to pursue claims relating to the incident to McClellan’s insurer, Albany Insurance Company (now known as Liberty Mutual Insurance Company). Although Mercer’s right to pursue these claims has been assigned to Albany, Mercer and Albany further agreed to jointly prosecute the claims. The suit is being maintained in Mercer’s name pursuant to Rule 25(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
With respect to the issue of damages, the district court concluded that under the Carmack Amendment, a carrier’s liability could be limited through tariff rates included in the bill of lading. See 49 U.S.C. § 14706(c)(1)(A). Although the bill of lading signed by Lanxon limited liability to Mercer’s tariff rate, the district court denied summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Mobile had actual knowledge of Mercer’s tariff rate. After the district court entered its ruling, the parties stipulated that Mobile did not actually know Mercer’s tariff rate and then again filed cross-motions for summary judgment on damages. The district court granted Mercer’s motion in part, concluding that Mercer’s tariff was not binding. The court entered judgment against Greentree in the amount of $70,018.20. The amount of damages reflected the court’s conclusion that Greentree was entitled to a setoff for the settlement payment made by McClellan to Mercer.
Greentree then brought this appeal arguing first that it is not liable for the damage to the aerial lifts and, alternatively, that either its tariff or Mercer’s tariff should have been applied to limit the amount of its liability.
This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.1999). We view the record in the light most favorable to the non- moving party and affirm when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Hysten v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 296 F.3d 1177, 1180 (10th Cir.2002). Mercer asserts that the district court correctly concluded that Greentree is strictly liable for the damage to the aerial lifts because its logo was displayed on the tractor-trailer at the time of the accident. In support of this argument, Mercer relies on this court’s decision in Rodriguez v. Ager, 705 F.2d 1229 (10th Cir.1983). Rodriguez involved a civil action seeking damages for fatal and nonfatal injuries suffered by the occupants of an automobile involved in a collision with a tractor-trailer truck. Id. at 1230. The truck had been leased to the defendant, a motor carrier, and at the time of the accident it bore the defendant’s placards. Id. The driver, however, was not operating the truck for the benefit of the defendant and the defendant was unaware that the truck was being used to pick up a load for a third party. Id. at 1230-31.
This court first discussed the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission governing leasing arrangements between interstate carriers and private owners of trucks used in interstate commerce applicable at the time of the accident. Id. at 1231-32. One of these regulations provided that the lessee of trucking equipment assumed complete responsibility for the control and use of the equipment during the term of the lease. Id. at 1231; 49 C.F .R. § 1057.4(a)(4) (1978). A second regulation provided that the lessee was responsible for removing its insignia and other identification from the equipment upon the termination of the lease. Rodriguez, 705 F.2d at 1231; 49 C.F.R. § 1057.4(d)(1) (1978). The court then examined congressional findings indicating that the purpose of regulating interstate truck leasing arrangements was “to establish responsibility for protection of the public in the lessee of the equipment.” Rodriguez, 705 F.2d at 1232. The court concluded that Congress intended to eliminate “fly-by-night contracting” and a carrier’s use of leased equipment to circumvent federal safety regulations by imposing responsibility for accidents involving leased equipment on the carrier whose insignia was displayed on the equipment at the time of the accident. Id. at 1236.
Consistent with congressional intent, the Rodriguez court imposed liability for the accident on the defendant because it had not removed its placards from the truck and, therefore, was irrebuttably deemed to be the lessee of the equipment and the statutory employer of the driver. [FN3] Id. at 1236. The court acknowledged that the defendant’s liability existed only by virtue of the leasing regulations. Id. at 1231. The court’s interpretation of the regulations to impose liability on the defendant furthered ” ‘the policy of protecting the public and providing it with an identifiable and financially accountable source of compensation for injuries caused by leased tractor-trailers.’ ” Id. at 1234 (quoting Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. America, 595 F.2d 128, 137 n. 29 (3d Cir.1979)).
FN3. The holding in Rodriguez is commonly referred to as the “logo liability” rule.
Greentree argues that Rodriguez has no application in this case because it involves only damage to property and not personal injuries. [FN4] We agree. Cf. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Guar. Nat’l Ins. Co., 868 F.2d 357, 363 (10th Cir.1989) (“Rodriguez is instructive on the issue of a lessee’s responsibilities to injured parties under ICC regulations, but it is not relevant to the issue of how liability should be allocated between two insurance companies, both of which arguably have insured the same event.”). The holding in Rodriguez was clearly driven by this court’s conclusion that the truck leasing regulations should be interpreted to protect members of the public who suffer personal injuries in accidents involving leased equipment. Rodriguez, 705 F.2d at 1236 (“Trucking equipment such as that here present has a capability for bringing about terrible injuries and damages to life.” (emphasis added)). The policy considerations that underlie the rule adopted in Rodriguez do not exist in causes of action brought pursuant to the Carmack Amendment. Such suits involve only the issue of carrier liability for property lost or damaged in shipment; they do not involve personal injuries sustained by members of the public as a result of a driver’s tortious conduct. The leasing regulations relied upon by the Rodriguez court do not govern the imposition or allocation of liability for property damage under the Carmack Amendment.
FN4. Greentree also argues that amendments made to the leasing regulations relied upon by the court in Rodriguez call into question the continued viability of the logo liability rule. Because we conclude, infra, that Rodriguez does not control the disposition of this case, it is unnecessary to address this argument.
In addition, the Carmack Amendment itself establishes a separate liability scheme, thereby rendering application of the Rodriguez rule to property damage cases unnecessary. A shipper pursuing a claim under the Carmack Amendment is relieved of the burden of demonstrating which of several carriers actually or proximately caused the loss to the property. See 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a). Instead, the shipper establishes a prima facie case against either the initial carrier or the delivering carrier by proving: (1) delivery of the property to the carrier in good condition; (2) arrival of the property at the destination in damaged or diminished condition; and (3) the amount of its damages. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v.. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 138 (1964). The burden then shifts to the carrier to demonstrate both that it was not negligent and that the damage was caused by an event excepted at common law. [FN5] Ensco, Inc. v. Wiecker Transfer & Storage Co., 689 F.2d 921, 925 (10th Cir.1982). The shipper’s damages, however, are limited to the actual loss or injury to the property. See 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1).
FN5. This includes damage “caused by (a) the act of God; (b) the public enemy; (c) the act of the shipper himself; (d) public authority; (e) or the inherent vice or nature of the goods.” Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 137 (1964) (quotation omitted); see also A.T. Clayton & Co. v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R., 901 F.2d 833, 834 (10th Cir.1990).
“The purpose of the Carmack Amendment was to relieve shippers of the burden of searching out a particular negligent carrier from among the often numerous carriers handling an interstate shipment of goods.” Reider v. Thompson, 339 U.S. 113, 119 (1950). This court has stated that the “principal function” of the Carmack Amendment “is to permit a shipper in interstate commerce to bring an action against the initial carrier to recover for damages to the shipment whether such damages occurred while the goods were in the hands of the initial carrier or connecting carriers.” L.E. Whitlock Truck Serv., Inc. v. Regal Drilling Co., 333 F.2d 488, 490 (10th Cir.1964), overruled on other grounds, Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. N. Am. Van Lines, 890 F.2d 1112, 1115 (10th Cir.1989) (en banc). Thus, a carrier can be held liable to a shipper for damage to cargo without regard to fault. Because the Carmack Amendment permits a shipper whose property is diminished or destroyed to recover its actual damages from a carrier without demonstrating actual or proximate cause, there is no need to extend the logo liability rule to suits brought pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a). The interests of shippers are adequately protected by the liability scheme set out in the statute itself.
If a carrier is held liable to the shipper under § 14706(a), it may, in turn, seek to recover from the carrier whose negligence caused the loss. 49 U.S.C. § 14706(b) (“The carrier issuing the receipt or bill of lading … or delivering the property for which the receipt or bill of lading was issued is entitled to recover from the carrier over whose line or route the loss or injury occurred….”). We discern no reason to extend the rule articulated in Rodriguez to indemnification suits brought pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 14706(b). Mercer has not provided this court with a citation to a single case in which the Rodriguez rule was extended to an indemnification suit brought pursuant to the Carmack Amendment and has failed to advance any argument why the rule should be so extended or why such suits should not be governed by traditional burdens of proof.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred when it determined that Greentree was liable for the damage to the aerial lifts simply because Lanxon’s truck bore Greentree’s placards at the time of the accident. Because the parties concede that disputed issues of material fact exist as to whether Greentree is liable under either 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a) or 49 U.S.C. § 14706(b), we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Mercer on liability and vacate its ruling on damages. This matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1291
 § 14706
 § 14706
 § 14706
 v. 
 § 14706
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1057
 § 1057
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14706
 v. 
 § 14706
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14706
 § 14706
 § 14706
 § 14706
 § 14706
 § 14706