Lexington Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Burr Computer Environments, Inc. and J. Supor and Sons Trucking and Rigging Co. v. Daybreak Express, Inc.
393 S.W.3d 242
| Tex. | 2013Background
- Parties: Lexington Insurance, subrogee of Burr; Burr’s shipment damaged in interstate transport by Daybreak Express.
- Facts: Daybreak transported Burr’s computer equipment; Burr claimed damage; Daybreak offered $5,420; Burr’s damages sought against Supor and Lexington paid $87,500 as subrogee.
- Claims: Lexington, as subrogee, sues Daybreak for breach of a settlement agreement rather than for Carmack-based cargo damage; later amends to plead a Carmack-based cargo-damage claim.
- Law: Carmack Amendment governs carrier liability for interstate shipments; complete preemption theory discussed but distinguished because Lexington’s suit seeks enforcement of a settlement, not direct damages.
- Procedural posture: Federal removal attempted; District Court ruled for Lexington on breach-of-settlement; Court of Appeals reversed; Texas Supreme Court granted review to decide relation-back under Texas Procedural Rule 16.068.
- Holding: Cargo-damage claim not barred by limitations; relation back to breach-of-settlement claim permitted; remand to state court for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relation back under 16.068 applies to Carmack claim? | Lexington: not a new transaction; same occurrence. | Daybreak: separate transactions; Carmack preemption governs. | Yes; cargo claim relates back; not barred. |
| Are cargo-damage and settlement claims based on wholly different transactions? | Arising from same shipment and settlement efforts. | Different transactions; damages vs. settlement. | Not wholly different; relation back allowed. |
| Does Carmack preemption compel separate treatment of settlement claim? | Preemption limited to carrier's interstate liability, not contract claim. | Complete preemption would bar related contract claim. | Preemption does not require treating as wholly separate transaction for relation back. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonard v. Texaco, Inc., 422 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. 1967) (relation back when claims arise from same occurrence and injury to property)
- Moore v. N.Y. Cotton Exch., 270 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1926) (transaction as flexible concept; courts look for common core of operative facts)
- Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines, 343 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2003) (Carmack Amendment exclusive remedy; preemption discussed)
- Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1913) (Carmack Amendment supersedes state law on interstate carrier liabilities)