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).


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.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.