721 F.3d 135
4th Cir.2013Background
- CSX transported a $1.384 million transformer from ABB's Missouri plant to Pittsburgh (March 2006).
- ABB sued for cargo damage; CSX sought to limit liability to $25,000 under the BOL/Price List 4605.
- District court granted summary judgment for CSX on liability-limitation defense, applying the $25,000 cap.
- ABB appealed, arguing Carmack Amendment imposes full liability absent a written limitation.
- The BOL did not state a liability limit; CSX's Price List 4605 listed $25,000 limit but ABB did not know of it before shipment.
- Court analyzes Carmack Amendment, BOL terms, and whether ABB had a valid written agreement to limit liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carmack Amendment allows liability limitation by written agreement. | ABB contends no written agreement; Carmack imposes full liability. | CSX argues BOL incorporated Price List 4605; ABB knew of limitation. | Carmack requires a written, specific agreement to limit liability; no such agreement shown. |
| Whether Price List 4605 was properly incorporated by reference into the BOL. | ABB was not aware of Price List 4605; no explicit reference. | BOL language incorporated the tariff by reference; ABB bound by terms. | BOL did not explicitly reference Price List 4605; incorporation insufficient to limit liability. |
| Whether ABB had a reasonable opportunity to choose between liability levels. | ABB did not know of higher-liability option. | CSX provided opportunity to elect full liability; ABB chose not to pursue. | CSX provided a reasonable opportunity to elect, so requirement satisfied or not met? |
| Whether ABB’s status as drafter affects Carmack analysis. | ABB drafted the BOL and should not be bound by its boilerplate terms. | Written agreement governs; shipper's drafting does not relieve liability limits. | Written agreement governs; shipper's drafting does not defeat Carmack limitations absent explicit terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc., 634 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2011) (four-part test for Carmack liability limitation exceptions)
- Siren, Inc. v. Estes Express Lines, 249 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir.2001) (written agreement through BOL incorporation of tariff by reference)
- Werner Enterprises v. Westwind Maritime International, Inc., 554 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.2009) (court upholds written-consent approach under Carmack)
- Sassy Doll Creations, Inc. v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 331 F.3d 834 (11th Cir.2003) (tariff/price-list as basis for liability terms post-deregulation)
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 970 F.2d 609 (9th Cir.1992) (pre-deregulation tariff notice standards for limitation of liability)
- Tempel Steel Corp. v. Landstar Inway, Inc., 211 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir.2000) (tariffs post-deregulation and Carmack impact on liability limits)