Opinion ID: 389258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Tariff is Ambiguous.

Text: 14 U.S. Steel argues that it was entitled to summary judgment because the tariff unambiguously authorizes refunds to a shipper located within the upper lakes port city which has the coal moved from the docks by rail as road-haul freight. U.S. Steel's position is that the term interior destination has no geographic prerequisite where the ex-dock transportation is by rail as road-haul freight. The Government contends that the Commission has already defined interior destination as a matter of law to include a geographic requirement that the third leg movement be transportation to a location outside the corporate limits of the port city. The Government further urges that a contrary interpretation cannot be given because the tariff would then be discriminatory in violation of section 2 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 2. 15 The district court noted the differing interpretations of the term interior destination and determined that the tariff was ambiguous. Arguably, the modifier interior would ordinarily suggest a destination other than one within the port city. Alternatively, subparagraph (1) of the defining clause seems to define interior destination as a mode of transportation without regard to a geographic destination. The finding of ambiguity seems correct, particularly in light of the existence of issues of fact concerning the drafting of the tariff and disputes over the relevance and meaning of various court and Commission decisions. Thus, the district court correctly denied U.S. Steel's motion for summary judgment. 16