Carmack Amendment

167 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• A.T. Clayton & Co., Inc. v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co.
  901 F.2d 833· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The Oklahoma attorney fee provision is not preempted by the Carmack Amendment and was properly applied by the district court.
• OAK Hall CAP & Gown Co. v. OLD Dominion Freight Line
  899 F.2d 291· 4th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the damages award but vacated and remanded the denial of costs, holding that the magistrate erred in not providing a reason for denying costs to the prevailing party.
• Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co.
  822 F.2d 676· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent and that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that no defendant was negligent or proximately caused the damage. The award of attorney's fees was also affirmed.
• Culver v. Boat Transit, Inc.
  782 F.2d 1467· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that substantial compliance with the written notice of claim requirement in a bill of lading, when the carrier has actual notice and conducts an investigation, may be sufficient to maintain an action under the Carmack Amendment.
• Ensco, Inc. v. Weicker Transfer & Storage Co.
  689 F.2d 921· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Weicker Transfer and Storage Co. was not acting as a common carrier when transporting the specialized Track Survey Device (TSD) for Ensco, but rather as a contract carrier or lessor, and thus was not liable under the Carmack Amendment for damages to the TSD. T
• Johnson & Johnson v. Chief Freight Lines Co.
  679 F.2d 421· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 2×
  A bill of lading, absent 'shipper's load and count' notation, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case for delivery of goods to the carrier, making the carrier liable for loss.
• Plough, Inc. v. The Mason & Dixon Lines
  630 F.2d 468· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court misallocated the burden of proof under the Carmack Amendment by requiring the shipper to prove specific carrier negligence after establishing a prima facie case.
• John Morrell & Co. v. Burlington N., Inc.
  560 F.2d 277· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contract price method, rather than the market value method, is permissible for ascertaining damages under the Carmack Amendment when it better reflects the shipper's actual loss.
• Gellert v. United Airlines
  474 F.2d 77· 10th Cir.· 1973-02-16 ·cited 2×
  A carrier's total liability, including consequential damages, is limited to the declared value of the shipment as per applicable tariff rules, even if the carrier did not elect to exclude consequential damages.
• AETNA Ins. Co. v. Newton
  456 F.2d 655· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict the clear terms of an integrated agreement, and an insured cannot recover from its insurer for liabilities arising from a contract that waived subrogation rights without insurer consent.
• Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Monon Railroad
  438 F.2d 1403· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a bill of lading with the final destination noted thereon constitutes a through bill of lading, making the initial carrier liable for loss regardless of routing or intermediate carriers.
• Cont'l CAN Co., Inc. v. Eazor Express, Inc.
  354 F.2d 222· 2d Cir.· 1965-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the carrier was negligent and liable for damage to the shipment because it failed to disprove negligence and the damages awarded were reasonable.
• Solway Metal Sales, Ltd. v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  344 F.2d 568· D.C. Cir.· 1965-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's finding that the damage was caused by the shipper's improper loading was not clearly erroneous, thus relieving the carrier of liability.
• Goliger Trading Co. of N.Y. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
  184 F.2d 876· 7th Cir.· 1950-10-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant's negligence, and therefore, the directed verdict in favor of the defendant was proper.
• Chase & Co. v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  94 Fla. 922· Fla.· 1927-11-15 ·cited 2×
  Chase & Company appeals the dismissal of a negligence action against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad for damage to a shipment of oranges transported under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a declarati
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Carr
  77 Fla. 469· Fla.· 1919-04-21 ·cited 2×
  A shipper of turpentine sued a railroad carrier for loss of goods in interstate transit. The Florida Supreme Court held that a common carrier cannot escape liability for defects in shipping cars through contractual arrangements, and that the carrier's duty to provide suitable car
• Molloy v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.
  267 F. Supp. 2d 1246· M.D. Fla.· 2003-05-28 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim letters met the minimum requirements for a determinable amount of money, and his failure to pay shipping charges did not bar his claim for lost or damaged goods.
• Circle Redmont, Inc. v. Mercer Transp. Co.
  78 F. Supp. 2d 1316· M.D. Fla.· 1999-12-26 ·cited 1×
  The Carmack Amendment's preemptive force is not so extraordinary as to convert state law claims into federal claims for removal jurisdiction purposes.
• Classic Fashions, Inc. v. Navieras N.P.R. Inc.
  68 F. Supp. 2d 1312· S.D. Fla.· 1999-06-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendants' liability, if any, was limited to $500 per container due to a lump sum rate and a Himalaya clause, and denied the plaintiff's motion for full recovery.
• Imperial News Co., Inc. v. P-I-E Nationwide, Inc.
  905 F.2d 641· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 1×
  A shipper's internal business practices and delayed discovery of non-delivery do not alter the definition of a reasonable time for delivery under a bill of lading, and claims filed outside this period are untimely.
• Godonou v. Allied Transp. Grp. LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-11
  The court recommended granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs, awarding $17,167.50 in fees and $650 in costs.
• Netto v. Nationwide Express Carrier Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-02-25
  The court recommended denying the motion for default final judgment because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate proper service of process under Florida law.
• Fla. Beauty Express, Inc. v. JVN Express, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-20
  The court recommended granting plaintiff's motion for final default judgment, finding that the defendant's default admitted the well-pleaded allegations establishing liability under the Carmack Amendment and that the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated its damages.
• Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dupre Logistics, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-16
  The court held that the Carmack Amendment claim (Count IV) could proceed because the plaintiff plausibly alleged the defendant acted as a motor carrier, and the FAAAA preempts the negligence claims (Count V) against the defendant acting as a broker.
• Q1, LLC v. MPR Assembly & Logistic Servs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-16
  The court denied the motion for attorney's fees without prejudice, deferring the decision until after the pending appeals are resolved.
• GVA Grp., Inc v. United Parcel Serv. Gen. Servs. CO
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-10-26
  The court held that the plaintiff's state law claims for breach of contract and negligent bailment were preempted by federal law governing common carriers.
• Scotlynn USA Div., Inc. v. Titan Trans Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-28
  The court held that an 80% reduction in attorney's fees and non-taxable expenses was appropriate, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation despite defendant's objections.
• Starceski v. United Van Lines LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-22
  A carrier can limit its liability under the Carmack Amendment if it provides the shipper with a reasonable opportunity to choose between different levels of protection, which was satisfied here by the explicit options and acknowledgments on the Bill of Lading.
• Starceski v. United Van Lines LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-01-27
  The court held that Defendant United Van Lines, LLC's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is denied because Count I, alleging a claim under the Carmack Amendment, is properly pled and survives dismissal.
• Ever Better Eating, Inc. v. Jama's Express LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-12-19
  The court held that the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it, but also found that some claims were preempted by the Carmack Amendment and FAAAA, while others were not.
• Starceski v. United Van Lines LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-19
  The court held that the Carmack Amendment preempts state law claims and constitutional challenges to the amendment, and that the plaintiff's Sherman Act claim was inadequately pleaded.
• Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Delmed Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-10-13
  The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the roof hatch was secured and whether the trailer had a latent defect.
• Scotlynn USA Div., Inc. v. Titan Trans Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-09-26
  The court held that Titan Trans Corporation is entitled to attorney's fees and costs for successfully defending against Scotlynn USA Division, Inc.'s contract claims, but not for the Carmack Amendment claim.
• Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Ins., Inc. v. CSX Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-03
  An insurance subrogee brought suit against railway service operators for negligence arising from a 2016 train collision in Ohio, alleging the defendants improperly left a rail switch open. The court lacked personal jurisdiction over one defendant (SIRS) because the plaintiff fail
• IAG Engine Ctr. Corp. v. Cagney Global Logistics, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-11-17
  The court held that the state law claims were preempted by the Carmack Amendment, and the inclusion of the Underwriters as plaintiffs violated the bankruptcy court's automatic stay order because the order did not contemplate their involvement.
• Whatley v. World Fuel Servs. Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-08-19
  The court denied the motion for contempt and sanctions because the moving party failed to comply with local rules requiring a meet and confer before filing the motion.
• Nat'l Oilwell Varco, Inc. v. Gold Express USA, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-18
  The court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding damages, costs, and prejudgment interest.
• Cent. Transp., LLC v. Global Aeroleasing, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-05-25
  A carrier's liability limitation agreed to by an intermediary binds the cargo owner, even if the owner was unaware of the specific terms, and the Carmack Amendment does not apply if expressly waived by contract.
• Eventus Mktg., Inc. v. Sunset Transp. Co.
  722 F. Supp. 2d 1311· S.D. Fla.· 2010-07-14
  The court held that the Carmack Amendment preempts state law claims arising from interstate carrier contracts, and granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing leave to amend.
• Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. BE Logistics, Inc.
  736 F. Supp. 2d 1311· S.D. Fla.· 2010-07-02
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a claim under the Carmack Amendment, and the carrier's liability was limited to the declared value on the bill of lading.
• ALL IN THE Fam. Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Donald and Meredith Latka
  935 So. 2d 87· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-08-04
  A moving company appeals a jury verdict awarding damages and attorney's fees to homeowners for loss and damage to their household goods during an interstate move. The court affirms, holding that the moving company's failure to notify the homeowners of their right to arbitration u
• Altadis USA, Inc. v. NPR, Inc.
  344 F. Supp. 2d 1349· M.D. Fla.· 2004-11-10
  The court held that the plaintiff could not obtain a judgment against the insurer directly, either under Ohio or Florida law, because the insurer had properly paid the claim to its insured, and the plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary entitled to recover under the policy.
• Siemens Power Transmission & Distrib., Inc. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.
  336 F. Supp. 2d 1201· M.D. Fla.· 2004-08-05
  The court held that a claim seeking damages within a broad estimated range, rather than a specified or determinable amount, fails to satisfy the condition precedent for recovery under the Carmack Amendment and the Uniform Bill of Lading.
• PT Indonesia Epson Indus. v. Orient Overseas Container Line, Inc.
  219 F. Supp. 2d 1265· S.D. Fla.· 2002-05-17
  The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the driver's potential involvement in the cargo hijacking, which impacts the applicability of COGSA's exceptions.
• PT Indonesia Epson Indus. v. Orient Overseas Container Line, Inc.
  208 F. Supp. 2d 1334· S.D. Fla.· 2002-05-15
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the driver's potential involvement in the cargo's loss.
• Circle Redmont, Inc. v. Mercer Transp. Co., Inc.
  795 So. 2d 239· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-09-28
  Circle Redmont appealed a trial court judgment dismissing its breach of contract and conversion claims against Mercer Transportation for failing to collect C.O.D. charges. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act pree
• Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Panalpina, Inc.
  153 F. Supp. 2d 1339· S.D. Fla.· 2001-03-06
  The court held that Yareinca was not a bailee because it did not voluntarily accept custody of the cargo under a contract to hold it in trust, nor did it exercise exclusive control over the cargo.
• United States v. Real Prop.
  285 F. App'x 495· M.D. Fla.· 1999-04-05
• Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Amato Motors
  996 F.2d 874· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-11
  Deregulation of trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC) and container-on-flatcar (COFC) services under the Staggers Act does not exempt common carriers from liability under the Carmack Amendment.
• JOS. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Transcon Lines
  757 F.2d 171· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-20
  The court held that the defendant carrier failed to meet its burden of proof under the Carmack Amendment to demonstrate it was free from negligence and that the cargo damage was caused by an inherent vice of the goods.