Law Offices of Peter W. Fudali, P.A

Practice Areas

TRANSPORTATION LAW

CARGO SUBROGATION

Land

MARINE AND TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE

WAREHOUSE GOODS LOSS

PERSONAL INJURY

6425 N.W. 43 Terrace

Boca Raton, Florida 33496

Telephone: 954-476-1770

Cell: 954-817-8361

E-mail: pfudali@fudalilaw.com

Newsletter

CARGO UPDATE NEWSLETTER

CARRIER NOT NAMED IN B/L MAY NOT USE B/L TO LIMIT LIABILITY – Fall 2014

In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, in Frontier Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. Streamline Transport Solutions, LLC,

2014 WL 3705349 (N.D. IL 2014), denied a motor carrier’s motion for partial judgment

on the pleadings seeking to limit liability under terms of the shipper’s bill of lading,

where the motor carrier was not listed as the “carrier.”

The case involved the theft of cargo from the motor carrier’s warehouse in Illinois

that was destined for Winnipeg, Canada. Frontier, a Canadian logistics company, agreed

to transport the goods for three of its customers and issued three bills of lading. Frontier

hired Streamline, a motor carrier, to transport the cargo and a load confirmation sheet was

also issued. The three bills of lading listed Frontier and Streamline as the “shipper,” and

no entity was identified as the “carrier.” The bills of lading each contained a $2.00 per

pound limitation of liability and there was no value declared. The load confirmation sheet

designated Frontier as the “shipper,” and Streamline as the “carrier,” and also stated,

“Carrier accepts full liability from pickup to delivery for temperature control, piece

count, damage, and on-time service.” Frontier alleged that it was the “originating carrier”

and contended that the bills of lading were its agreements with the three shipping

customers and that the load confirmation sheet was evidence of its contract with

Streamline. Frontier sought indemnification from Streamline under Carmack for the full

amount of the loss, $99,569.80. Streamline sought partial judgment on the pleadings

arguing that its potential liability was limited to $16,888.00 by virtue of the bill of lading

$2.00 per pound limitation.

The court denied Streamline’s motion because it could not conclude as a matter of

law that the parties agreed to the bill of lading limitation. The bills of lading did not

establish conclusively an agreement between Streamline and Frontier to limit liability.

The court found the identity of the “carrier” to be ambiguous since the bills did not name

any carrier. The court held that because the identities of the “carrier” and the parties to

the bills of lading were ambiguous, and it was unclear how the bills of lading and load

confirmation relate, it could not be determined as a matter of law that Streamline’s

liability was capped at $2.00 per pound. Given the ambiguity or potential ambiguity, the

non-moving party had the right to present extrinsic evidence as to the meaning of the

contested terms.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Cargo Update Newsletter is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended to convey legal advice or to create an attorney/client relationship. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the Author and are not necessarily opinions and conclusions shared by others.

CIVIL LITIGATION

Newsletter Archive

Name:

Email:

Phone:

Comments:

TRANSPORTATION, MARITIME & CARGO SUBROGATION SERVICES

This website is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended to convey leagl advice or to create an attorney/client relationship

6425 N.W. 43 Terrace

Boca Raton, Florida 33496

954-476-1770

pfudali@fudalilaw.com