Wisconsin Central Limited v. Tienergy, LLC
894 F.3d 851
7th Cir.2018Background
- Allied shipped ~100,000 railroad ties via Wisconsin Central to TiEnergy; Allied listed TiEnergy as consignee on bills of lading.
- TiEnergy received, processed (ground), and sold the ties to Xcel; the railcars remained on track beyond the tariff’s two days, accruing demurrage.
- Wisconsin Central (via CN) billed TiEnergy about $100,000 in demurrage; TiEnergy objected, claiming it never agreed to be consignee and sought indemnity from Allied.
- District court granted summary judgment for Wisconsin Central and Allied, denying TiEnergy’s motions; TiEnergy appealed.
- Seventh Circuit considered appellate and original-jurisdiction issues and treated the demurrage claim as arising under 49 U.S.C. § 10743, giving federal-question jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction (Rule 58 finality) | Wisconsin Central: district court opinion showed final disposition despite no separate Rule 58 judgment | TiEnergy: absence of separate Rule 58 document deprives appellate jurisdiction | Court: jurisdiction exists; district opinion sufficiently signaled finality (Borrero applied) |
| Federal-question jurisdiction (statutory basis) | Wisconsin Central: demurrage is a "rate for transportation" under 49 U.S.C. § 10743 so federal jurisdiction under § 1337 | TiEnergy: case is contract/state-law; § 1337(a) amount-in-controversy limits apply | Court: claim arises under § 10743; federal jurisdiction proper; § 1337(a) amount limit inapplicable |
| Whether TiEnergy is a "consignee" liable for demurrage | Wisconsin Central: TiEnergy was consignee—designated on bills, had control and beneficial interest (processed and sold ties) | TiEnergy: it was merely an intermediary/agent; never agreed to be consignee; therefore not liable | Court: TiEnergy had control and beneficial interest (grounded and sold ties), so is a consignee and liable for demurrage (South Tec test) |
| Indemnification / contribution from Allied | TiEnergy: Allied agreed (or is liable via agency) to indemnify or share liability | Allied: no written indemnity; no principal-agent control; not a joint tortfeasor | Court: no evidence of oral indemnity; TiEnergy not Allied’s agent; contribution inapplicable (not a tort/joint tortfeasor); indemnity/contribution claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- General Ins. Co. of Am. v. Clark Mall Corp., 644 F.3d 375 (7th Cir. 2011) (final judgment must dispose of all claims for § 1291 review)
- Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2006) (district-court failure to comply with Rule 58 is not fatal where intent to finally dispose is clear)
- Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. South Tec Dev. Warehouse, Inc., 337 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2003) (test for consignee liability includes contract designation, bill-of-lading listing, and nature of party’s relationship to freight)
- CSX Transp. Co. v. Novolog Bucks Cty., 502 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2007) (demurrage treated as a rate for transportation; circuit authority taking a different view on unilateral designation)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Groves, 586 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2009) (unilateral designation on bill of lading alone insufficient to impose demurrage liability without notice/consent)