U.S. Bankruptcy Judge in Seattle ruled that carriers have a superior claim to freight charge receivables to the claim of the intermediary’s secured lender, which had loaned the broker millions against its receivables. Worldpoint Logistics (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2003)
A carrier in possession of a shipment at the time of loss is not assumed liable for the cargo when it was not named on the bill or otherwise contractually responsible, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently ruled. In this case, the name or logo on the truck did not establish liability for personal injury or property damage. Mercer Trans. Co. vs. Greentree Transp. Co., 341 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2003)
A New York district court held that a broker who merely arranged for a shipment between Mexico and the United States was not liable for cargo loss because it was not the carrier, did not issue a through bill and was not a bailee. George Weintraub & Sons Inc. vs. E.T.A. Transp. Inc. 2003 LEXIS 14851 (S.D.NY 2003)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with the Fifth and Eleventh circuits in holding that a shipper “assumes the risk” that it may have to pay freight charges twice in situations where an intermediary fails to transmit its payment. There is no economically rational motive for a carrier to release a shipper from joint liability when it agrees to initially bill a middleman, the court ruled. Hawkspere Shipping Company vs. Intamex, 330 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2002)
A shipper that had paid a middleman was found liable for freight charges to the underlying carrier on the grounds of quasi-contract, a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruling held. The same court in a previous case had applied equitable estoppel to preclude carrier recovery, but in this case the shipper could point to no action by the carrier to support a claim that the carrier had surrendered the right to recourse. Contship Container Lines Inc. vs. Howard Industries Inc. 309 F.3d 910 (6th Cir. 2002)
A shipper cannot rely solely on the bill of lading to prove the quantity and quality of goods shipped where the load is sealed at time of pickup, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled. A.I.G. Uru. Compania de Seguros S.A. vs. AAA Cooper Transp. 334 F.3d 997 (11th Cir. 2003)
A Georgia district court ruled that a freight forwarder cannot seek full value for cargo loss where its own liability to its shipper/customer is limited by contract. Carriers, therefore, can demand the benefits of a released rate negotiated by the broker or forwarded when presented with a claim. AIT vs. U.S. Xpress (N.D.Ga. 2003) See also Medtronic Inc. vs. U.S. Xpress, 341 F.3d 798 (8th Cir. 2003)
