UNITED STATES
v.
REAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING ANY BUILDINGS, APPURTENANCES, & IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, LOCATED AT 31236 ANNA STREET
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Carmack Amendment completely preempts the plaintiff's claims, and the liability limitation agreement is enforceable because the plaintiff had reasonable notice and opportunity to choose coverage levels.
[1] Carmack Amendment completely preempts state law claims for loss or damage to property during interstate shipping.
[2] Punitive damages are not recoverable under the Carmack Amendment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“”
Statement of the court's primary legal conclusion regarding preemption.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff's claims stem from the loss of his property during interstate shipping by the defendant carrier. The plaintiff sought damages, including…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Carmack Amendment cases and more on FLexlaw
MEMORANDUM **
The Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, is applicable to Marro’s claims and completely preempts Marro’s stated causes of action. The Carmack Amendment is the exclusive cause of action for interstate-shipping contract claims alleging loss or damage to property, see Hall v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 476 F. 3d 683, 688 (9th Cir.2007), and all of Marro’s alleged injuries stem directly from Globe Corp.’s loss of his property.
The Carmack Amendment limits a carrier’s liability under an interstate bill of lading to the actual loss or injury to the property caused by the carrier; punitive damages are therefore not available. 49 U.S.C. § 14706; Hall, 476 F. 3d at 686 n. 2 (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)); Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd. v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 213 F. 3d 1118, 1120 (9th Cir.2000). Thus, the district court properly denied Marro’s request for punitive damages.
The liability limitation agreement that Marro signed is only enforceable if he had “reasonable notice of the liability limitation *496and the opportunity to obtain information necessary to making a deliberate and well-informed choice.” Hughes Aircraft Co. v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 970 F. 2d 609, 612 (9th Cir.1992). Magistrate Judge Chen found that Marro had a reasonable opportunity to choose between different levels of coverage and was not under duress. The district court adopted the Magistrate’s report “in every respect.” These factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F. 3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir.2001). The liability limitation agreement is therefore enforceable.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. N. Am. van Lines, Inc., 970 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1992)