Braid Sales & Marketing, Inc. v. R & L Carriers, Inc.
Docket: No. 5D02-1168
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 23, 2003; Florida; State Appellate Court
Braid Sales, Marketing, Inc. successfully appealed a judgment that limited its damage claim against R. L Carriers, Inc. to $3,612.55. The court found that the trial court incorrectly applied the Carmack Amendment, which regulates liability for interstate carriers. Braid sought over $15,000 for damage to machinery during transport, alleging negligence and breach of an oral contract. The trial court dismissed the breach of contract claim, citing preemption by the Carmack Amendment, and ruled in favor of R. L based on its affirmative defense under the Amendment.
However, the appellate court determined that R. L failed to prove it maintained a valid tariff with the Interstate Commerce Commission, a prerequisite for invoking the Carmack Amendment. The only tariff presented did not list R. L as a participating carrier, undermining R. L's defense. The trial court's conclusion that Braid waived its argument regarding the tariff's applicability was found to be erroneous, as the record did not support any prior conduct constituting waiver. Furthermore, the terms of the bill of lading cited by R. L did not establish that any applicable tariff was in effect at the time of shipment. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and ruled that Braid was entitled to recover damages directly caused by R. L's negligence, not limited by the Carmack Amendment.
Braid contests the trial court's dismissal of Count II, which asserts a breach of an oral agreement made after the shipment was completed. Braid argues this claim is not precluded by the Carmack Amendment, which R. L contends provides the exclusive remedy for cargo loss or damage, citing Rini v. United Van Lines, Inc. Rini established that while the Carmack Amendment preempts state laws that expand carrier liability related to cargo loss, it does not preempt claims arising from separate harms unrelated to the goods. Braid's claim, based on an oral contract for repair payments post-shipment, is deemed a distinct harm and therefore not preempted. The court emphasized that carriers cannot evade responsibilities from independent contracts. The Carmack Amendment restricts a carrier's liability based on a tariff, which R. L failed to substantiate in this case. Braid did not argue the lack of a tariff in response to the dismissal motion, thereby waiving that point for Count II. The legal discourse around the Carmack Amendment's preemptive scope remains unsettled, as illustrated by varying decisions, including Mesta v. Allied Van Lines International, Inc., which found certain claims against carriers were not preempted. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case.
In Sokhos v. Mayflower Transit, Inc., the court determined that the Carmack Amendment does not preempt state law claims arising from a carrier's mishandling of damage claims. In American Transfer and Storage Co. v. Brown, the court ruled that the amendment does not supersede claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act for pre-contract misrepresentations. Conversely, in United Van Lines, Inc. v. Homburger, the court found that state law counterclaims for emotional distress and false billing representations were preempted by the Carmack Amendment. Similarly, in Margetson v. United Van Lines, Inc., fraud claims against the carrier were preempted when damages pertained to injury and loss of goods. In Pietro Culotta Grapes Ltd. v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., the court held that claims based on post-shipment conduct were also subject to preemption by the Carmack Amendment.
