1 Transportation and Logistics Counsel Annual Conference March 18, 2014 Carmack Amendment And Preemption Of Personal Injury Claims By: Beata Shapiro, Esq. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP 1010 Washington Blvd., Stamford, CT
2 Carmack Liability & Preemption Liability: A motor carrier providing transportation services is liable to a shipper for damage or loss to cargo. The liability imposed is for the actual loss or injury to the property. See 49 U.S.C (a). Preemption: Federal preemption is the doctrine that federal law precludes and prevents the application of contrary state law. Courts consistently hold that the remedies provided by the Carmack Amendment preempt state law claims against a carrier for loss or damage to interstate shipments, such as negligence, breach of contract, and state consumer protection laws. See Smith v. United Parcel Service, 296 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2002); York v. Day Transfer Co., 525 F. Supp. 2d 289, (D. R.I. 2007). Some courts have even precluded personal injury claims arising out of transportation services based on the Carmack Amendment.
3 York v. Williams Moving Company, 525 F. Supp. 2d 289 (D. R.I. 2007) Plaintiffs personal property suffered mold damage when stored during transport. Plaintiffs alleged, among other injuries, physical injuries and emotion pain and suffering due to the delivery of moldy property. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court held that these damages were preempted by the Carmack Amendment because such damages stem directly from the shipment and delivery of their goods.
4 Alessandra v. Mullen Bros., 1999 Mass. Super. Lexis 399 (Mass. Super. 1999) Defendant moved Plaintiff s property from her home into a warehouse. Plaintiff's property was exposed to pesticides while in storage. Defendant then transported the property to Plaintiff s new residence. Plaintiff claimed the pesticides caused her to have a physical reaction requiring medication attention. The court dismissed all of Plaintiff s state law claims, even those alleging bodily injury, because of Carmack Amendment preemption.
5 Tayloe v. Kachina Moving & Storage, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (D. Ariz. 1998) Plaintiffs property was transported and stored by Defendants. Some of the property was damaged, some lost and some contaminated with mold. Plaintiffs alleged that as a result of the mold one of the Plaintiffs developed a severe allergic reaction requiring hospitalization. Plaintiffs alleged personal injuries in their complaint. The court granted Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment finding that all of the Plaintiffs state law claims were preempted by the Carmack Amendment in part because Plaintiffs' claims arose out of the interstate transportation of their household goods.
6 Strike v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 102 F. Supp. 2d 599 (M.D. Pa. 2000) Defendant transported Plaintiffs personal property. Gasoline spilled on the property during transport. On delivery, the fumes overwhelmed Plaintiffs causing them to seek medical attention. Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of contract, loss of consortium and negligence. Plaintiffs sought damages for personal injuries. Defendant moved to dismiss all claims pursuant to the Carmack Amendment. The court granted the Motion to Dismiss and stated that Carmack Amendment preemption extended to claims like the Plaintiffs' involving personal injuries suffered as the result of changes made to shipped goods through negligence of the carrier.
7 Glass v. Crimmins Transfer Co., 299 F. Supp. 2d 878 (C.D. Ill. 2004) Defendants stored Plaintiffs personal property during a move. The property developed mold and fungus. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants seeking compensation for their property damage, emotional distress, and physical injury. They brought claims for breach of contract, fraudulent concealment, negligence, and Carmack Amendment damages. The court granted Defendants motion for summary judgment finding that Plaintiffs state law claims, including those alleging personal injuries and emotional distress, were preempted by the Carmack Amendment.
8 Huertas v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 42 Misc. 3d 245 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013) Not a Carmack case. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant for personal injuries after she tripped and fell on boxes. Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing in part that Plaintiff's claims were pre-empted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA) and the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The court rejected this argument and held that preemption was not proper. Ultimately, the court held that the Defendant owed no duty to the Plaintiff and dismissed the claim.
9 Moffit v. Bekins Van Lines Co., 6 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 1993) Defendant transported Plaintiffs household goods. Plaintiffs wanted delivery before Christmas. Defendant did not deliver the goods on time. Plaintiffs brought suit alleging claims of outrage, intentional and negligent emotional distress, breach of contract, breach of an implied warranty, breach of an express warranty, a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, slander, misrepresentation, fraud, negligence, and violation of obligations as a common carrier. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion holding that the Carmack Amendment preempted all of Plaintiffs state law claims.
Getman, Schulthess, Steere & Poulin, P.A. NEWSLETTER New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine & Vermont June 2015 Dear Michael, This newsletter discusses updates and changes in the law. Should you have questions,
New Jersey Statute of Limitations Checklist Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP This Checklist is published by Practical Law Company on its PLC Litigation & ADR web services at http://us.practicallaw.com/9-501-2932.
2012 IL App (1st) 103818-U THIRD DIVISION May 2, 2012 No. 1-10-3818 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Illinois Statute of Limitations Checklist Timothy R. Lavender and Michael R. Dover, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP This Checklist is published by Practical Law Company on its PLC Litigation & ADR web services
Bradford G. Hughes Partner firstname.lastname@example.org 11766 Wilshire Boulevard Sixth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-6538 Tel: 310.689.7040 Fax: 310.473.2525 EDUCATION University of San Diego School of Law, J.D.,
Suzette E. Selden Mark L. Kincaid George Brothers Kincaid & Horton, L.L.P. 114 West 7th Street, Ste. 1100 Austin, Texas 78701 512/495-1495 512/499-0094 fax State Bar of Texas CLE 30th Annual Advanced Personal
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: W. BRENT THRELKELD DEAN ARNOLD ASHLIE K. KEATON KATHERINE G. KARRES Threlkeld & Associates Ken Nunn Law Office Indianapolis, Indiana Bloomington,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL
PERSONAL AND ADVERTISING INJURY LIABILITY COVERAGE: AN ANALYTICAL APPROACH TO CLAIMS Annual Update Covering cases from January 2013 -January 2014 Authors: Shaun McParland Baldwin Thomas W. Arvanitis Dennis
INSURANCE LAW Wording and Interpretation Attorneys Fees as By Thomas R. Newman To help preclude obligations to defend or indemnify insureds for suits seeking awards of attorneys fees, insurers and their
I. WHAT IS BAD FAITH? A. Basic Definition THE BASICS OF BAD FAITH First Party Insurance Refusal to pay a claim without a reasonable basis or even if insurer has a reasonable basis for denial, failing to
HOW SUBROGATION AFFECTS YOUR CLIENT JULIA A. BEASLEY BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES INTRODUCTION How do you protect your client in negotiating personal injury settlements in view of Powell
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NAZHAT BAHRI, and Plaintiff, DR. LABEED NOURI and DR. NAZIH ISKANDER, UNPUBLISHED October 9, 2014 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION December 9, 2014 9:15 a.m. Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Attorneys at Law ERISA and Life Insurance News Covering ERISA and Life, Health and Disability Insurance Litigation DECEMBER 2012 INSIDE THIS ISSUE 5 5 6 6 Request for Information Did Not Constitute Request
CAROL PRICE IN THE Plaintiff CIRCUIT COURT vs. FOR SINAI HOSPITAL OF BALTIMORE, INC. BALTIMORE CITY CASE NO.: 24-C-04-007323 Defendant MEMORANDUM This case comes before this Court on a Petition for Court
WHY SMART EMPLOYERS OPT OUT FROM TEXAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COVERAGE UNDER V.T.C.A. LABOR CODE 406.002(A) KIRK D. WILLIS 1 I. INTRODUCTION Under the Texas Workers Compensation Code, an employer may elect
Statutes of Limitation for Civil Action for Offenses Against Children Compilation Last Updated May 2013 In the wake of notable child sexual abuse scandals and in light of growing awareness of the issue
Information Security Law An Overview David G. Ries Thorp Reed & Armstrong, LLP Pittsburgh, PA email@example.com (412)-394-7787 February 2007 Contents Page I. Introduction 1 II Selected Information Security
Ch24-A04438 9/18/06 1:46 PM Page 257 C H A P T E R 2 4 Medical Malpractice Defenses S. Sandy Sanbar, M.D., Ph.D., J.D. GOLDEN RULES 1. The physician should be knowledgeable of the general defense theories
Dallas July 18th Renaissance Dallas Richardson Hotel 900 East Lookout Drive Richardson, TX 75082 St. Louis August 22nd Sheraton Westport Hotel Plaza Tower 900 Westport Plaza St. Louis, MO 63146 General
Recent Case Law Addressing Three Contentious Issues in the Montreal Convention By Christopher E. Cotter What is the difference between a flight from New York to Los Angeles and one from New York to Vancouver?
Ex Parte Communications Between Defense Counsel and Treating Physicians By Melissa Phillips Reading and Laura Marshall Strong Has HIPAA Really Changed the Landscape? Plaintiffs attorneys often argue that
THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)
INSURANCE & INSURED RISK/PROJECT DELIVERY Is the Line Blurring Between General and Professional Liability? By Sean T. Devenney and Gregg Bundschuh Sean T. Devenney Gregg Bundschuh In recent years the construction
SOUTHEASTERN BANKRUPTCY LAW INSTITUTE, INC. THIRTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL SEMINAR BANKRUPTCY LAW AND RULES MARCH 22-24, 2012 ATLANTA, GEORGIA Ancillary Litigation Personal Injury/Employment Discrimination/ Workers