at 137. The equivalent statute for motor carriers is 49 U.S.C. § 14706. A quick refresher on the Carmack Amendment, bills of lading, and limitation of liability clauses is due.

We regularly receive questions about motor carrier liability under the Carmack Amendment. This standard has been ubiquitous with interstate motor carriage since its enactment in 1906. Still, misunderstandings abound and can lead to road bumps in both contract negotiation and resolution of cargo claims.Here is a reminder of the basic legal principles.No Carrier Negligence Standard. At a high-level, a motor carrier providing interstate transportation services assumes liability for loss, damage, or delay to cargo pursuant to 49 USC 14706 (the Carmack Amendment). The Carmack Amendment places a near strict liability standard on motor carriers for the “actual loss or injury” to cargo that occurs while under the motor carrier’s care, custody, and control (Carmack Liability). A carrier’s negligence, or lack of negligence, is purposefully absent from a Carmack Liability analysis.Limitations of Liability. The “actual loss or injury” standard generally includes loss, damage, or delay and extends to loss, damage, or delay that is reasonably foreseeable. The quintessential examples for delay liability (i.e., a failure to use reasonable dispatch) may constitute “actual loss or injury” when a food product that is delayed in delivery such that it expires and is no longer saleable or when dated materials such as greeting cards stating “Merry Christmas 2022” arrive January 2023. In practice, the rates offered for service are typically based upon an agreed limitation of liability, such as $100,000 per truckload. Liability options, or

As mentioned above, Mecca’s Second Amended Complaint asserted claims of negligence, breach of contract and indemnification against White Arrow. The contract between Mecca and White Arrow provided that “the Carrier’s liability for cargo loss or damage shall be governed by the provisions of [the Carmack Amendment] 49 U.S.C. § 14706. [xvi] The court interpreted Mecca’s breach of contract claim as a cause of action under Carmack.

Savannah Sox– the shipper – doesn’t care, they want their money for the damaged socks.THE CARMACK AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTWhen freight is transported across the United States, the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 14706) to the United States Interstate Commerce Act applies and preempts all state laws. The Carmack Amendment’s purpose is to simplify all transportation freight claims.

Plaintiff Cathy Brentzel appealed the district court’s motion to dismiss arguing that the district court erred in determining that 49 U.S.C. § 14706 – the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act – preempted her state law conversion claim. Brentzel filed suit against Fairfax Transfer and Storage for the alleged loss and theft of household goods – including a ring and $10,000 cash– transported from her Virginia residence to her Washington D.C. main residence, about one-third of which were never delivered.

2. Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 76 (2008) Carmack is currently codified at 49 U.S.C. §14706. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 505 (1913) Gordon v. United Van Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 282, 289 &7th Cir. 1997).

The outright rejection or immediate disposal of food at destination, without knowing if the shipment was actually damaged, may present challenges in being able to establish the damages element of a Carmack Amendment Claim. Unless a contract provides otherwise, despite the STF Rule, a claimant must still establish a Carmack claim (49 U.S. Code § 14706) by showing that (1) a shipment was tendered in good condition, (2) it arrived in bad condition and (3) damages occurred in order to recover for a lost or damaged shipment. Carriers that do not secure their own cargo inspection will likely experience difficulty in defending against a Carmack claim.

In N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 719 Fed. Appx. 691 (9th Cir. 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Appeals Court) addressed the question of whether an insurer, N.Y. Marine & General Insurance Company (N.Y. Marine), could recover from a cargo carrier under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, if the insured’s loss claim did not state a specified amount of money. Finding that § 14706 requires that a party filing a cargo loss claim state a specified or determinable amount of money, the Appeals Court affirmed the district court’s holding that neither the carrier, Estes Express Lines, Inc. (Estes) nor the broker, Exfreight Zeta, Inc. (Zeta), was liable to N.Y. Marine.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against the carrier. Two issues were presented for determination by the court: 1) whether Airgroup’s liability for the theft is limited by the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706; and 2) if Airgroup’s liability is not so limited, what the measure of damages should be. As the court noted, the Carmack Amendment regulates the liability of common carriers for loss or damage to shipments: 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.

The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction by reason of the District Court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration. The principal issue was the effect of the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 14706, which was argued to preclude arbitration clauses. The Ninth Circuit held, among other things, as follows: First, the arbitration clause at issue might be reviewed by corporate lawyers and other draftsmen, though the particulars of the language did not control this case: Any disputes in relation to the conclusion, implementation, interpretation, cancellation, dissolution or invalidity of the contract or stemming therefrom or connected thereto in any form shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Regulation.