United States: Shipping Between The United States And Canada: Does The Carmack Amendment Always Apply?

Suppose that you are a motor carrier that picked up cargo in Phoenix for carriage to Toronto. The cargo arrives damaged at the destination. The affected party commences an action. You might assume when your counsel prepares your defense that American law (i.e., the Carmack Amendment) will govern the dispute. Will this, however, necessarily be the case? What if the shipment originated in Toronto, arriving damaged in Phoenix? Would Canadian law necessarily govern?

In the United States, the Carmack Amendment governs exclusively the liability of a carrier for loss or damage to interstate shipments of cargo. 49 U.S.C. § 14706. Carmack's core elements include the following:

  1. Federal law preempts all state law claims arising from or related to an interstate shipment, see, e.g., Hall v. N. Am. Van Lines, 476 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2007);
  2. A liable carrier would assume liability for "actual loss or injury to the property" transported, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1);
  3. A carrier has the authority to designate claim and lawsuit-filing requirements in the bill of lading, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(e);
  4. A carrier has the authority to limit its liability by agreement with a shipper for an amount less than the value of the goods, in exchange for lower freight charges, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(c) (commercial freight) & (f) (household goods);
  5. Carmack establishes concurrent jurisdiction in both state and federal courts to preside over and adjudicate Carmack-related claims, but proper federal jurisdiction requires the loss or damage claim to exceed $10,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1337(a) & 1445(b); and
  6. Carmack requires a carrier to issue a bill of lading or receipt for property that it receives, but failure to do so does not affect its liability. 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1).

In cases filed in the United States, courts take different approaches when deciding which law governs. As discussed below, they will not always apply Carmack if the shipment originates in Canada.

Cases Filed in a U.S. Court: The Different Approaches

When dealing with shipments from the United States to Canada, the U.S. courts have no problem figuring out which law applies. Carmack is clear on this direction of shipments. Carmack expressly applies to shipments from the United States to adjacent foreign countries, such as Canada, transported on a through bill of lading. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 14706(a)(1) provides:

The liability imposed . . . is for the actual loss or injury to the property caused by (A) the receiving carrier, (B) the delivering carrier, or (C) another carrier over whose line or route the property is transported . . . .  from a place in the United States to a place in an adjacent foreign country when transported under a through bill of lading . . . ." (emphasis added).

The courts have a tougher time figuring out which law applies when the shipments originate in Canada and will be transported to a destination in the United States under a through bill of lading. The U.S. courts take three different approaches to shipments from Canada to the United States:

  1. The majority rule is that the Carmack Amendment does not apply to shipments from Canada to the United States under a through bill of lading. Most likely, Canadian law would apply to the cross-border shipment. On the other hand, Carmack would apply to a shipment from Canada to United States if the damage or the loss occurred while the goods were being transported within the United States and a separate bill of lading was issued for the United States leg of the transportation.
  2. A second view is that although Carmack does not apply by its express language, a conflict of laws analysis must be used to determine what law applies (e.g., Canadian, federal common law or a particular state law).
  3. The minority view is that the Carmack Amendment applies to shipments originating in adjacent countries, such as Canada, to a United States destination.

Part of the reason for the differing views is that the Carmack Amendment is silent concerning its applicability to shipments from an adjacent foreign country to the United States. It expressly applies only "from a place in the United States to a place in an adjacent foreign country."

Another reason for the conflicting views is the courts' attempt to reconcile the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, with the Interstate Commerce Act's "general jurisdiction" provision, 49 U.S.C. § 13501, and its earlier versions. This jurisdiction provision provides:

The Secretary [of Transportation] and the [Surface Transportation] Board have jurisdiction, as specified in this part, over transportation by motor carrier and the procurement of that transportation to the extent that passengers, property, or both, are transported by motor carrier—

(1) Between a place in- . . .

(E) the United States and a place in a foreign country to the extent the transportation is in the United States . . . .

(emphasis added).

Some courts perceive that Carmack's use of from the United States to an adjacent country and its silence on from the adjacent country to the United States conflicts with the general jurisdiction provision's use of between a place in the United States and a place in a foreign country.

U.S. Majority Approach

One of the earliest decisions to articulate the majority rule is Alwin v. Penn. R.R. Co., 15 A.2d 507 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940). Alwin involved a shipment of cattle by rail from Ontario, Canada, to Middletown, Pennsylvania. After examining the legislative history of both the jurisdictional provision (then found at § 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA)) and the Carmack Amendment (then found at § 20(11)), the Alwin court held that Carmack insofar as it governed shipments involving adjacent foreign countries, applied only to movements to a foreign country and not to movements from a foreign country. The court noted: "There is not the slightest ambiguity in the use of the language employed [in Carmack] and it would grossly distort the meaning to add to the field shipments from an adjacent country to a point in the United States." 15 A.2d at 509. Further, the Alwin court recognized that the statutory scope of the jurisdictional provision (i.e., describing the field which Congress has taken over), was broader than Carmack's scope (i.e., addressing a carrier's liability for damages). Id. at 512.

As of 1940, the year that Alwin was decided, Congress had recently amended the jurisdictional provision, replacing "from . . . to" with "from or to . . . to or from." Id. at 510. The Alwin court reasoned that if Congress "had intended to expand the field of liability for damages to include imports as well as exports it would have said so in clear language." Id. After 1940, "from or to . . . to or from" was replaced with "between," how it reads today in § 13501. Despite Congress' many changes to the jurisdictional provision, the Carmack Amendment's "from . . . to" language has never changed, further supporting the majority view's position.

Although Congress has regulatory power over a shipment after it crosses into the United States, Alwin was also concerned that Carmack would have involved "extraterritorial legislation" if applied to import movements. Id. See also Strachman v. Palmer, 82 F. Supp. 161, 164 (D. Mass. 1949), aff'd, 177 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. 1949) ("It is at least doubtful whether Congress could constitutionally regulate the Canadian carrier's liability for an event . . . occurring in Canada in connection with a contract made in Canada by a Canadian corporation . . .").

An overwhelming majority of courts adopted Alwin's holding that the Carmack Amendment has no application to goods received for shipment at a point outside the United States. See, e.g., Whaling v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 919 F. Supp. 168, (E.D. Pa. 1996); Kenny's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Baker, 478 F. Supp. 461 (E.D. Pa. 1979); Skalaroff v. Penn. R. Co., 90 F. Supp. 961, (E.D. Pa. 1950); Leary v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., 207 S.E. 2d 781 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

U.S. Federal Common Law Approach

In Ingram Micro, Inc. v. Air Route Cargo Express, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 2d 834 (S.D. N.Y. 2001), the court applied the majority rule with a twist: Although it found that Carmack does not apply to shipments originating in Canada, it found that federal common law applied based on a traditional conflict of laws analysis.

In Ingram Micro, Ingram hired Airroute to transport a shipment of software from a warehouse in Quebec, Canada, to Ingram's warehouse in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Airroute took possession of the shipment in good order in Quebec and then, on the same day, redirected it to its subcontractor, Paquin, in Quebec. Airroute hired Paquin to transport the shipment from Quebec to Pennsylvania. The shipment was stolen when Paquin had stored it in a trailer outside its warehouse. Although Canadian law enforcement authorities recovered some of the stolen software, a significant portion was never recovered, and Ingram sought damages of $434,894. Airroute sought to enforce its bill of lading's limitation of liability of the "lesser of $100.00 or $2.00 per pound." 154 F. Supp. 2d at 837.

The court first addressed the threshold question of which law would apply—Canadian or United States law. Ingram claimed that U.S. federal common law should govern, and Airroute claimed that Canadian law should apply. After a conflict of laws analysis, the scales tipped toward the U.S. federal common law. Under the court's analysis, it considered the place of contracting, the places of negotiation and performance, the location of the subject matter, and the domicile or place of business of the contracting parties. Id. at 840.

The court found that the true place of contracting was California where Ingram transmitted its acceptance of Airroute's terms. Id. Thus, the contract had already been formed in California when the bill of lading was issued in Canada. Id. at 841. Although the parties disputed the place of performance, the court found that the predominant place of performance was the United States because both parties understood that the delivery was to be made in Pennsylvania. Id. According to the court, the disappearance of the goods from Canada was irrelevant to the determination of the planned place of performance. Id. As a result, the greater portion of the performance was to be in the United States, including the significantly longer travel time and the delivery of the goods there. Id. The other factors, such as the place of negotiation, the location of the subject matter and the domicile or the place of business of the parties were a wash, favoring neither party's position. Id. The court viewed the place of contracting and the place of performance, which the court gave the heaviest weight, as supporting United States law over Canadian law as the governing law. Id. Based on the U.S. federal common law, the court found that Airroute's limitation of liability was enforceable. Id. at 844.

U.S. Minority Approach

The primary source of the minority view is the U.S. Supreme Court case Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Woodbury, 254 U.S. 357 (1920). There, the Supreme Court interpreted the "from...to" language contained in the ICC's jurisdictional provision as encompassing both exports and imports. Writing for the Court, Justice Brandeis found that "[a] carrier engaged in transportation by rail to an adjacent foreign country is, at least ordinarily, engaged in transportation also from that country to the United States." 254 U.S. at 359.

Based on Woodbury, some courts have reasoned that if the "from . . . to" language in the jurisdictional provision really meant "between," then the use of similar language, if not identical language, in the Carmack Amendment should be interpreted in the same manner. Most notably, Sompo Japanese Ins. Co. of America v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 456 F.3d 54 (2nd Cir. 2006), followed Woodbury and rejected all of the Alwin line of cases. Although Sompo did not involve transportation from an adjacent country to the United States, the court held that the domestic leg of a shipment originating overseas was subject to the Carmack Amendment. 456 F.3d at 69. Specifically, the Sompo court reasoned that "while the Woodbury Court interpreted the 'from . . . to' language only in that section of the ICA defining the ICC's jurisdiction, one would think that the same interpretation would have applied to the identical language in Carmack." 456 F.3d at 66.

The most recent case adopting the minority view is Atlas Aerospace LLC v. Advanced Transportation, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 157416 (D. Kan. Apr. 24, 2013) ("Atlas Aerospace"). There, the court rejected the line of cases beginning with Alwin and instead followed the Sompo case, even though the Supreme Court in Kawasaki effectively overruled Sompo's ultimate holding that Carmack applied to the domestic leg of an international shipment originating in a non-adjacent foreign country. Atlas Aerospace, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 157416, at *7–8. Similar to Sompo, the Atlas Aerospace court adopted the reasoning of Woodbury that the "from . . . to" language in the ICC's jurisdictional provision meant transportation in either direction and thus encompassed both imports and exports. Id. at *8. The court added that "[t]here is no reason to believe that Congress intended that these two "from . . . to" provisions have different meanings." Id. at *9. The Atlas Aerospace court followed Sompo "in concluding that the scope of the agency's jurisdiction [now found at 49 U.S.C. § 13501], and therefore also the scope of the liability provision, under the Carmack Amendment includes shipments between the United States and Canada in either direction." Id. at *10.

The CAN$2.00 per pound limitation liability established by Canada's Uniform Bill of Lading may favor U.S. carriers importing goods from Canada into the United States. In other words, there may be no beneficial reason for U.S. counsel to argue the minority view—that Carmack applies when a shipment originates in Canada—because the U.S. carrier may benefit from a lower limitation of liability by virtue of Canadian law.

Of course, if U.S. law applies, but the shipper and carrier by contract waive any or all rights and remedies under the Carmack Amendment under 49 U.S. § 14101, then there is a possibility that the parties will agree to a choice of law and venue specific to a certain state or another country. In Kawasaki, the Court acknowledged that a forum-selection clause is "'an indispensable element in international trade, commerce, and contracting' because it allows parties to 'agre[e] in advance on a forum acceptable' to them." 561 U.S. at 109 (citing The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 13–14 (1972)). Such a provision is generally enforceable "unless it imposes a venue 'so gravely difficult and inconvenient that [the plaintiff] will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.'" 561 U.S. at 110 (citing The Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18).

Conclusion

As indicated above, in the United States, the Carmack Amendment governs which law applies for shipments between the United States and Canada, although U.S. courts do not agree completely on its interpretation. As such, it can be said that U.S. carriers only have the freedom to contract which law applies if they waive the application of Carmack under 49 U.S.C.§14101(b),  which calls for special consideration beyond the scope of this article.

The benefits of a negotiated carriage contract are obvious in terms of the certainty that comes with a carrier adopting and implementing a certain business model. Carriers and practitioners alike need to be aware in any event of which law will govern any dispute in both the interpretation of and the application of such a contract. Certainly, if there has been no contract completed by the parties specifying which legal system will apply in the event of a cross-border cargo claim, a practitioner must be aware of the potential for the invocation and any related cost or benefit of one legal regime over the other for a carrier defendant.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions