Heniff Transportation System, L.L.C. v. Trimac Transportation Services, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1665
5th Cir.2017Background
- Heniff contracted to transport chemicals from Texas to Illinois; Huntsman required a prior "Kosher wash" specified in the bill of lading.
- Heniff hired Trimac to clean the tanker; the wash was performed inadequately and the chemicals were contaminated, damaging Lambent’s property.
- Heniff and its insurer settled Lambent’s claims for spoiled cargo and property damage; Heniff then sued Trimac in federal court asserting state-law tort claims and a Carmack Amendment apportionment claim.
- The district court (transferred to E.D. Tex.) granted summary judgment to Trimac, holding Heniff’s state-law claims preempted by the Carmack Amendment because the tank wash was a service "related to the movement" of interstate property.
- The district court separately dismissed Heniff’s federal apportionment claim for failure to meet Carmack procedural requirements; Heniff appealed only the preemption holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trimac's tank-wash was a "service related to the movement" of interstate property under 49 U.S.C. § 13102(23) so Carmack preempts state-law claims | The wash is not within the statute's examples and thus not covered | The wash is a transportation-related service (preparing equipment for interstate shipment) and falls within the statute's illustrative list | Held: Yes — the tank wash is a covered service and Carmack preempts state-law claims |
| Whether lack of a bill of lading or Trimac's absence from the bill of lading excludes Trimac from Carmack liability | Trimac wasn’t a party to any bill of lading and the bill was issued after the wash, so Carmack doesn't apply | Carmack liability does not depend on issuance or party status to a bill of lading; failure to issue does not affect liability | Held: Irrelevant — failure to issue or be a named party to the bill of lading does not defeat Carmack coverage |
| Whether Trimac's lack of knowledge that tanker would be used for interstate chemical shipment defeats Carmack coverage | Absence of knowledge precludes Carmack coverage | Carmack has no scienter requirement; knowledge is unnecessary | Held: Knowledge not required; coverage turns on the service's nature |
| Whether Heniff's alternative pleading (asserting Carmack and state claims) affects preemption analysis | Alternative pleading shows Carmack shouldn't apply to bar state claims | Irrelevant; if service falls under statute, state claims are preempted regardless of pleading posture | Held: Preemption decided on statutory scope; state claims barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Lifecare Hosps., Inc. v. Health Plus of Louisiana, Inc., 418 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment on appeal)
- Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2009) (view facts favoring nonmovant on summary judgment)
- Distribuidora Mari Jose, S.A. de C.V. v. Transmaritime, Inc., 738 F.3d 703 (5th Cir. 2013) (Carmack generally preempts state-law claims arising from interstate shipments)
- Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines, 343 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2003) (Carmack provides exclusive remedy for loss or damage to goods transported interstate)
- Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89 (2010) (applicability of Carmack depends on whether carrier was required to issue a bill of lading, not whether it actually did)