1. Did Tronosjet declare the value of the cargo of three crates of landing gear in the “SPECIAL AGREEMENT” box of the BOL?

2. Did the trucking firm have an obligation under the ICC Termination Act of 1995 to affirmatively notify Tronosjet that, absent a declared value, Con-way’s liability was limited?

3. Is it “right” that the motor carrier caused $165,000 in damages to the cargo and that a court of law determined that the shipper’s claim is limited to $819.71?

On March 11, 2009, a Straight Bill of Lading (BOL) was issued by Con-way Freight, Inc., for a shipment of cargo from Canada to the United States. The BOL identified the shipper as the Tronosjet Maintenance, Inc., and the consignee as Montex Drilling, Fort Worth, Texas. The “SPECIAL AGREEMENT” box for declaring value and agreeing to pay for excess liability was blank. The BOL identified the cargo as three crates of landing gear. On March 13, 2009, the cargo was picked up in St. John, New Brunswick, Canada. On March 17, 2009, the cargo was transloaded to another trailer, carried from Canada across the border to the United States. On March 19, 2009, the cargo was transloaded to another trailer and physical damage to the crates was noted. On March 23, 2009, the damaged cargo was delivered to Montex Drilling in Fort Worth, Texas. Tronosjet seeks to recover $165,000 as full damages under the Carmack Amendment. Con-way claims that it owes just $819.71 because the claim is subject to the limitation of liability set forth in the BOL and Tariff CNWY 199.

JUDICIAL OPINION

LAKE, D. J.… Historically, a carrier could limit its liability under the Carmack Amendment by (1) maintaining a tariff filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission (I.C.C.), (2) obtaining the shipper’s written agreement as to its choice of liability, (3) giving the shipper a reasonable opportunity to choose between two or more levels of liability, and (4) issuing a receipt or BOL prior to moving the shipment. … In 1995 Congress added a requirement that carriers “provide to the shipper, on request of the shipper, a written or electronic copy of the rate, classification, rules, and practices upon which any rate applicable to a shipment, or agreed to between the shipper and the carrier, is based.” Id. (quoting

I.C.C. Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104–88…. Instead of maintaining a tariff in compliance with the I.C.C., a motor carrier must now, at the shipper’s request, provide the shipper with “a written or electronic copy of the rate, classification, rules, and practices upon which any rate applicable to a shipment, or agreed to between the shipper and the carrier, is based.” 49 U.S.C. § 14706(c)(1) (B).

[T]he BOL under which the cargo shipped states that “the shipment is received subject to Tariff CNWY–199, Carrier’s pricing schedules, terms, conditions, and rules maintained at Carrier’s general offices in effect on the date of issue of this Bill of Lading.” Because Tronosjet does not dispute that Con-way not only maintained a tariff that incorporated both the limitation of liability at issue and a separate excess valuation charge for full liability, but also published that tariff on its website, and incorporated the tariff by reference into the BOL at issue, the court concludes that Con-way has presented undisputed evidence showing that … Con-way had established rates for different levels of liability and would have made these rates available to Tronosjet upon request.