Estes Express Lines v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 65
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Estes appeals a Claims Court dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- MCCS procured shipments via a broker, Salem, with shipments between June 2008 and February 2009.
- Estes and Salem had no written contract; Estes handled shipments under its common-carrier tariff.
- Salem-MCCS contract governed Salem’s services and invoicing to MCCS; Salem paid carriers and invoiced MCCS.
- Bills of lading list MCCS/MCX as consignee and indicate third-party freight charges to Marine Corps Exchange C/O Salem Logistics; some shipments involved Government as shipper.
- MCCS paid Salem for some shipments; Salem did not remit payment to Estes; MCCS later paid some carriers directly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether privity exists between Estes and the Government. | Estes argues privity via bills of lading or as deemed privity. | Claims Court held no direct privity; contract was with Salem. | No direct privity found (reconsidered on appeal). |
| Whether bills of lading create privity despite MCCS-Salem contract. | Bills of lading reflect Government as party to pay charges. | MCCS-Salem contract alone cannot bind Estes. | BILLS can establish privity; MCCS-Salem contract cannot erase them. |
| Whether the Government is liable under 49 U.S.C. § 13706 as consignee. | Section 13706 creates direct liability for consignee. | Claims Court rejected §13706 as basis for liability. | Not decided on merits; remand on jurisdiction issue. |
| Whether the Government’s status as consignee/shipper affects jurisdiction. | Government is party to bills of lading. | Salem’s role as broker breaks causal privity. | Not resolved here; focus on privity through bills of lading. |
| Whether the Claims Court’s dismissal was proper on jurisdictional grounds. | Privity via bills of lading supports Tucker Act jurisdiction. | Lacked direct privity and appropriate contractual basis. | Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Commercial Metals Co., 456 U.S. 336 (1982) (bill of lading governs transport contract; shipper liable under terms)
- Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 265 U.S. 59 (1924) (privity through bill of lading terms; carrier liability)
- Cienega Gardens v. United States, 194 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (privity and Tucker Act jurisdiction analysis)
- Cent. Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 104 (2009) (precedent on freight charges and privity under bills of lading)
- Cent. Transp. Intl, Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 336 (2004) (distinguishing government party to bills of lading)
- Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (privity requirement under Tucker Act)
- Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (jurisdiction burden on plaintiff)
- Maher v. United States, 314 F.3d 600 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (jurisdictional burden and standard of review)
- Cent. Transp. Intl, Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 336 (2004) (see above)