Ameriswiss Technology, LLC v. Midway Line of Illinois, Inc.
2012 DNH 173
| D.N.H. | 2012Background
- Ameriswiss purchased thirteen machines in Morrison, Illinois for transport to Holderness, NH.
- Ameriswiss contracted with Robinson to arrange shipment and Midway was hired by Robinson to haul the machines.
- The machines were loaded Oct. 15, 2010 and destroyed in a single-vehicle accident in New York on Oct. 16, 2010.
- Ameriswiss sues Robinson for negligence and breach of contract; MB Insurance sues for subrogation against Robinson, Midway, and the driver.
- Robinson moves for summary judgment on all Ameriswiss and MB Insurance claims, arguing preemption and other legal theories.
- The court grants summary judgment for Robinson, holding all relevant claims are preempted or failed on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carmack Amendment preempts the claims. | Ameriswiss argues preemption applies. | Robinson contends implied preemption under Carmack and express preemption under ICCTA. | Yes; Carmack impliedly and ICCTA expressly preempt the claims. |
| Whether ICCTA express preemption defeats state-law negligence and bailment claims. | Ameriswiss maintains no express preemption covers broker-liability claims. | Robinson relies on ICCTA express preemption. | Yes; ICCTA express preemption applies. |
| Whether Ameriswiss’s breach-of-contract claim (including any warranty) survives. | Contract includes warranty of safe transport via “all inclusive.” | Robinson did not warrant safe delivery; no contract to insure. | Robinson entitled to judgment as a matter of law on breach-of-contract theories. |
| Whether Ameriswiss failed to prove Robinson insures the shipment. | Ameriswiss alleged insured transport; evidence disputed. | No evidence of a promise to provide/ procure insurance; “all inclusive” not a warranty. | Robinson entitled to judgment as a matter of law on insurance theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rankin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 336 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2003) (Carmack Amendment uniform liability for carriers)
- Rini v. United Van Lines, Inc., 104 F.3d 502 (1st Cir. 1997) (Carmack Amendment preempts state damages claims for interstate cargo loss)
- Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1913) (historical basis for uniform federal liability in shipping)
- Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134 (1964) (Carmack Amendment framework for carriers' liability)
- York v. Day Transfer Co., 525 F. Supp. 2d 289 (D.R.I. 2007) (Broker/shipper claims often subject to Carmack preemption)
- Chubb Group of Insurance Companies v. H.A. Transportation Systems, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (Carmack Amendment does not apply to brokers; preemption analysis varies with party role)
- Chatelaine, Inc. v. Twin Modal, Inc., 737 F. Supp. 2d 638 (N.D. Tex. 2010) (Discusses implied preemption under Carmack and broker status)