OneBeacon Insurance v. Haas Industries, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4603
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- OneBeacon, as PPI's subrogee, sues Haas under the Carmack Amendment for lost goods during interstate shipment.
- PPI bought three pallets of computer wafers from Omneon and arranged direct shipment to CUNY; shipment was FOB Omneon's dock, transferring ownership at Omneon's departure.
- Omneon arranged Haas as carrier; Haas bill of lading incorporated Haas's Conditions of Contract Carriage, defining 'Shipper' and liability limits.
- Bill of lading limited Haas's liability to $50 per shipment or $0.50 per pound absent higher declared value; higher value required an excess valuation charge.
- Omneon did not declare a value on the bill of lading; PPI did not sign the bill, and ownership was not listed on the bill.
- Wafers arrived with only two of three pallets; Haas paid $88 to Omneon, asserting liability was limited; OneBeacon paid PPI and filed suit as subrogee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Carmack Amendment | PPI is within 'Shipper' by definition; OneBeacon, as subrogee, has standing. | Only Omneon, the contracting shipper, can sue under the bill of lading. | OneBeacon has standing; PPI falls within 'Shipper' and OneBeacon, as subrogee, may sue. |
| Haas's liability limitation under Hughes test | Hughes Aircraft test applies; Haas failed to provide proper notice and agreement to limit liability. | Haas complied with revised statutory requirements; notice and agreement were provided and rates were available upon request. | Haas satisfied the Hughes test under the revised statute; liability properly limited. |
| Effect of potential accord/ satisfaction | Accord and satisfaction may undermine liability limitations if proven. | Accord and satisfaction not proven; district court’s finding stands, and Haas did not appeal this point. | Remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the liability limitation; accord/ satisfaction unresolved on this record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Livingston, 13 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1926) (holder of bill of lading as representative of real parties in interest)
- Pa. R.R. Co. v. Olivit Bros., 243 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1917) (original 'lawful holder' concept rejected for owner-standing)
- Lite-On Peripherals, Inc. v. Burlington Air Express, Inc., 255 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2001) (standing in bill of lading context extended to Merchant-like definitions)
- All Pac. Trading, Inc. v. Vessel M/V Hanjin Yosu, 7 F.3d 1427 (9th Cir. 1993) (standing under bill of lading to enforce terms against carrier)
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 970 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (multi-element test for liability limitation under Carmack)
- Emerson Electric Supply Co. v. Estes Express Lines Corp., 451 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2006) (interpretation of amendments restricting tariff publication and notice)
- Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 513 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2008) (bill of lading contract interpretation in Carmack context)
- Reider v. Thompson, 339 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1950) (carmack framework for carrier liability and remedies)
- Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 130 S. Ct. 2433 (2010) (Carmack Amendment scope and carrier liability framework)