You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United Van Lines, Inc. v. Henry

Citations: 40 F. Supp. 2d 1105; 1998 WL 1031410Docket: No. 4:97CV1342 JCH

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri; July 19, 1998; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a case involving United Van Lines, Inc. and two defendants over unpaid transportation charges, the defendants sought to set aside a summary judgment previously granted in favor of United. The defendants alleged they were unaware of the tariffs and claimed that Sterling had settled the charges on their behalf, but the payment was returned. The court evaluated the application of the filed rate doctrine, noting that United operated as a contract carrier, which did not exempt defendants from liability as the contracts incorporated tariff rates. Defendants' joint and several liability was affirmed based on the bill of lading and the principle that spouses can bind each other in agreements involving shared property. The court denied the defendants' motion, emphasizing their failure to provide specific evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Ultimately, the court upheld the summary judgment, holding both defendants liable for the unpaid charges due to their acceptance of the shipment and failure to substantiate claims of improper liability assignment.

Legal Issues Addressed

Burden of Production in Summary Judgment

Application: Defendants failed to meet the burden of production as they did not provide specific facts or sufficient evidence to oppose the motion for summary judgment.

Reasoning: The court found that the defendants did not meet their burden of production, leading to the denial of their motion to set aside the summary judgment.

Filed Rate Doctrine

Application: The court determined that the filed rate doctrine did not apply as Plaintiff was a contract carrier, but noted that the contracts incorporated tariff rates, undermining Defendants' argument.

Reasoning: In their arguments, Defendants contended that Plaintiff operated as a contract carrier, thus the filed rate doctrine did not apply, suggesting they were unaware of tariff charges and their liabilities.

Joint and Several Liability on Bill of Lading

Application: The court upheld the joint and several liability of both shippers and consignees for unpaid charges, regardless of credit extension.

Reasoning: Both the shipper and consignee are jointly and severally liable for all unpaid charges related to the shipment, regardless of any credit extended.

Liability of Spouses and Shared Property

Application: The court affirmed the liability of both defendants, citing that spouses can bind each other in agreements concerning shared property.

Reasoning: Citing Cleckner v. Republic Van Storage Co., the Court upheld that Gary Henry could be held liable as well, based on the principle that spouses can bind each other in agreements involving shared property.

Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment

Application: The court considered Defendants' claim of not receiving notice of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and allowed them to demonstrate good cause for setting aside the judgment.

Reasoning: Defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment on May 19, 1998, in response to a suit by Plaintiff United Van Lines, Inc., for unpaid transportation charges amounting to $7,325.61.