Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/943/316/86038/
Timestamp: 2019-09-22 16:20:18
Document Index: 598948831

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 11707', '§ 11707', '§ 11707', '§ 11707', '§ 1332', '§ 1291']

Carmana Designs Ltd., Appellant, v. North American Van Lines Inc., American Priority Express, Inc.north American Van Lines, Inc., Cross-claimant, v. American Priority Express, Inc., Cross-claimant, 943 F.2d 316 (3d Cir. 1990) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1990 › Carmana Designs Ltd., Appellant, v. North American Van Lines Inc., American Priority Express, Inc.no...
Carmana Designs Ltd., Appellant, v. North American Van Lines Inc., American Priority Express, Inc.north American Van Lines, Inc., Cross-claimant, v. American Priority Express, Inc., Cross-claimant, 943 F.2d 316 (3d Cir. 1990)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 943 F.2d 316 (3d Cir. 1990)
July 8, 1991.Decided Sept. 3, 1991.
The Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act imposes absolute liability upon carriers for "the actual loss or injury to property caused by" a carrier. 49 U.S.C. § 11707(a) (1). Under 49 U.S.C. §§ 11707 and 10730, carriers, however, are permitted to limit their liability through a written agreement with the customer or shipper which evidences "an absolute, deliberate and well-informed choice by the shipper." Bio-Lab, Inc. v. Pony Express Courier Corp., 911 F.2d 1580, 1583 (11th Cir. 1990) quoting Anton v. Greyhound Van Lines, Inc., 591 F.2d 103, 108 (1st Cir. 1978). Permitting carriers to limit their liability is a carefully defined exception to the Carmack Amendment's general objective of imposing full liability for the loss of shipped goods; courts, thus, carefully scrutinize agreements purporting to limit such liability. Anton, 591 F.2d at 109.
Norton v. Jim Phillips Horse Transp., 901 F.2d 821, 827 (10th Cir. 1989) quoting Hughes v. United Van Lines, 829 F.2d 1407, 1415-16 (7th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 913, 108 S. Ct. 1068, 99 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1988). The burden of establishing that these requirements have been met rests with the carrier. Acro Automation Systems v. Iscont Shipping Ltd., 706 F. Supp. 413, 416 (D. Md. 1989); Flying Tiger Line v. Pinto Trucking Service, 517 F. Supp. 1108, 1112 (E.D. Pa. 1981). Because this is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to Carmana Designs, the non-moving party. Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 647 (3rd Cir. 1989).
If Carmana Designs were a sophisticated shipper or had extensive dealings with North American prior to this accident, we would be more receptive to North American's argument. A shipper's sophistication, abundant experience, or extensive prior dealings with a carrier may constitute additional evidence of a limitation agreement between the parties. See Norton, 901 F.2d at 823; Mechanical Technology, Inc. v. Ryder Truck Lines, 776 F.2d 1085, 1086 (2nd Cir. 1985); Boeing Co. v. U.S.A.C. Transport, Inc., 539 F.2d 1228, 1230 (9th Cir. 1976). Carmana Designs, however, had shipped with North American only once before the accident. And Carmana previously had not received any additional information from American Priority or North American regarding the limits of coverage or the necessity of separately purchasing insurance for the shipment.
Federal law governs the merits of this action. 49 U.S.C. § 11707. That section also provides for federal jurisdiction in the judicial district in which the shipper's loss or damage occurred. 49 U.S.C. § 11707(d) (2) (A) (iii). Because the plaintiff here brought its action in another judicial district, federal jurisdiction in the district court existed only under the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We exercise appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291