904 F.3d 614
8th Cir.2018Background
- July 2013: A crude-oil train shipped from North Dakota to New Brunswick derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, killing ~47 and destroying the shipment.
- Bill of lading: drafted/issued by Canadian Pacific Railway (CP); unclear whether it incorporated the federal uniform straight bill of lading language (nine-month notice, two-year suit limit).
- WFE (shipper) sent a November 5, 2013 notice asserting a Canadian-law claim and expressly disclaimed a Carmack Amendment claim, stating it would submit a Carmack claim later; CP replied Nov. 27 denying the Canadian claim and warning limits of liability.
- WFE served a Carmack Amendment notice on April 4, 2014; CP acknowledged April 24, 2014 and denied the Carmack claim; suit was filed April 12, 2016 by the assignee Trustee (Whatley).
- Irving (consignee) served a potential Carmack notice April 16, 2015. MAR bankruptcy proceedings occurred; the bankruptcy plan tolled limitation periods per the plan language.
- District court dismissed (judgment on pleadings/summary judgment) holding WFE’s claim untimely (two-year clock started Nov. 27, 2013) and Irving’s claim untimely for failing to give notice within nine months. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WFE’s Carmack claim is time-barred | WFE: Nov. 2013 letter was a Canadian-law claim (not a Carmack claim); two-year clock began with CP’s April 24, 2014 denial, so suit (Apr. 2016) is timely | CP: Any written denial/response in Nov. 2013 started the two-year period regardless of label | Court: Reverse dismissal — Nov. 2013 correspondence was not a Carmack claim/denial under §11706(e); two-year clock did not start until April 2014 acknowledgment/denial; WFE claim survives |
| Whether Irving’s Carmack claim is time-barred | Irving: not party to bill of lading; claim filed as soon as damages could be reasonably calculated; bankruptcy tolling may apply | CP: Uniform bill/tariffs impose nine-month notice and two-year suit limits that bar Irving’s late notice; Irving cannot accept benefits and avoid limits | Court: Remand — existence/applicability of contractual time limits and tolling disputed; cannot resolve on pleadings/summary judgment; Irving may be untimely if limits apply and tolling fails |
| Whether any carrier communication can start §11706(e)’s two-year period | Whatley: denial must be of a claim "under this section" (i.e., a Carmack claim) | CP: any written claim denial identifying shipment and intent to hold carrier responsible starts the clock | Held: Statute requires denial of a claim brought under §11706; a non‑Carmack (Canadian-law) notice does not trigger the two-year period for Carmack suits |
| Whether the record shows incorporation of the uniform straight bill language | Whatley: bill of lading here lacks clear incorporation; factual dispute prevents dismissal | CP: tariffs and bill references incorporate uniform bill time limits | Held: Genuine dispute exists about contractual terms and tariff incorporation; record inadequate to grant judgment for CP on Irving claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89 (2010) (Carmack Amendment allocates liability among carriers and relieves shippers of identifying negligent carrier)
- Reider v. Thompson, 339 U.S. 113 (1950) (Carmack Amendment relieves cargo owners of burden to search for negligent carrier)
- Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491 (1913) (preemption of state common-law carrier claims by federal Carmack framework)
- Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134 (1964) (prima facie elements for Carmack Amendment recovery)
- Shao v. Link Cargo (Taiwan) Ltd., 986 F.2d 700 (4th Cir. 1993) (record insufficiency to determine whether contractual time limits bar Carmack claim; remand warranted)