◄back to Transportation News and Updates

FEDERAL FREIGHT CLAIMS REGULATIONS ARE ALIVE AND WELL

THE REGULATIONS 49 CFR 370.1-.11 ARE FREQUENTLY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO SHIPPING CONTRACTS AND ARE OFTEN OVERLOOKED OR IGNORED

 THE REGULATIONS ARE:

49 CFR 370.1 APPLICABILITY

49 CFR 370.3 FILING OF CLAIMS

49 CFR 370.5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CLAIMS

49 CFR 370.7 INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS

49 CFR 370.9 DISPOSITION OF CLAIMS

49 CFR 370.11 PROCESSING OF SALVAGE

§370.1 Applicability of Regulations:  

The regulations set forth in this part shall govern the processing of claims for loss, damage, injury, or delay to property transported or accepted for transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, by each motor carrier, water carrier, and freight forwarder (hereinafter called carrier), subject to 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV, Part B.

§370.3 Filing of Claims:

(a) Compliance with regulations: A claim for loss or damage to baggage or for loss, damage, injury, or delay to cargo, shall not be voluntarily paid by a carrier unless filed, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, with the receiving or delivering carrier, or carrier issuing the bill of lading, receipt, ticket, or baggage check, or carrier on whose line the alleged loss, damage, injury, or delay occurred, within the specified time limits applicable thereto and as otherwise may be required by law, the terms of the bill of lading or other contract of carriage, and all tariff provisions applicable thereto.

(b) Minimum filing requirements: A written or electronic communication (when agreed to by the carrier and shipper or receiver involved) from a claimant, filed with a proper carrier within the time limits specified in the bill of lading or contract of carriage or transportation and: (1) Containing facts sufficient to identify the baggage or shipment (or shipments) of property; (2) Asserting liability for alleged loss, damage, injury, or delay; and (3) Making claim for the payment of a specified or determinable amount of money, shall be considered as sufficient compliance with the provisions for filing claims embraced in the bill of lading or other contract of carriage; provided, however, that where claims are electronically handled, procedures are established to ensure reasonable carrier access to supporting documents.

( c) Documents not constituting claims: Bad order reports, appraisal reports of damage, notations of shortage or damage, or both, on freight bills, delivery receipts, or other documents, or inspection reports issued by carriers or their inspection agencies, whether the extent of loss or damage is indicated in dollars and cents or otherwise, shall, standing alone, not be considered by carriers as sufficient to comply with the minimum claim filing requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) Claims filed for uncertain amounts: Whenever a claim is presented against a proper carrier for an uncertain amount, such as "$100 more or less", the carrier against whom such claim is filed shall determine the condition of the baggage or shipment involved at the time of delivery by it, if it was delivered, and shall ascertain as nearly as possible the extent, if any, of the loss or damage for which it may be responsible. It shall not, however, voluntarily pay a claim under such circumstances unless and until a formal claim in writing for a specified or determinable amount of money shall have been filed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section.

(e) Other claims: If investigation of a claim develops that one or more other carriers has been presented with a similar claim on the same shipment, the carrier investigating such claim shall communicate with each such other carrier and, prior to any agreement entered into between or among them as to the proper disposition of such claim or claims, shall notify all claimants of the receipt of conflicting or overlapping claims and shall require further substantiation, on the part of each claimant of his/her title to the property involved or his/her right with respect to such claim.

§ 370.5 Acknowledgment of Claims:

(a) Each carrier shall, upon receipt in writing or by electronic transmission of a proper claim in the manner and form described in the regulations in the past, acknowledge the receipt of such claim in writing or electronically to the claimant within 30 days after the date of its receipt by the carrier unless the carrier shall have paid or declined such claim in writing or electronically within 30 days of the receipt thereof. The carrier shall indicate in its acknowledgment to the claimant what, if any, additional documentary evidence or other pertinent information may be required by it further to process the claim as its preliminary examination of the claim, as filed, may have revealed.

(b) The carrier shall at the time each claim is received create a separate file and assign thereto a successive claim file number and note that number on all documents filed in support of the claim and all records and correspondence with respect to the claim, including the acknowledgment of receipt. At the time such claim is received the carrier shall cause the date of receipt to be recorded on the face of theclaim document, and the date of receipt shall also appear in the carrier's acknowledgment of receipt to the claimant. The carrier shall also cause the claim file number to be noted on the shipping order, if in its possession, and the delivery receipt, if any, covering such shipment, unless the carrier has established an orderly and consistent internal procedure for assuring: (1) That all information contained in shipping orders, delivery receipts, tally sheets, and all other pertinent records made with respect to the transportation of the shipment on which claim is made, is available for examination upon receipt of a claim; (2) That all such records and documents (or true and complete reproductions thereof) are in fact examined in the course of the investigation of the claim (and an appropriate record is made that such examination has in fact taken place); and (3) That such procedures prevent the duplicate or otherwise unlawful payment of claims.

§ 370.7 Investigation of Claims:

(a) Prompt investigation required: Each claim filed against a carrier in the manner prescribed in this part shall be promptly and thoroughly investigated if investigation has not already been made prior to receipt of the claim.

(b) Supporting documents: When a necessary part of an investigation, each claim shall be supported by the original bill of lading, evidence of the freight charges, if any, and either the original invoice, a photographic copy of the original invoice, or an exact copy thereof or any extract made there from, certified by the claimant to be true and correct with respect to the property and value involved in the claim; or certification of prices or values, with trade or other discounts, allowance, or deductions, of any nature whatsoever and the terms thereof, or depreciation reflected thereon; provided, however, that where property involved in a claim has not been invoiced to the consignee shown on the bill of lading or where an invoice does not show price or value, or where the property involved has been sold, or where the property has been transferred at bookkeeping values only, the carrier shall, before voluntarily paying a claim, require the claimant to establish the destination value in the quantity, shipped, transported, or involved; provided, further, that when supporting documents are determined to be a necessary part of an investigation, the supporting documents are retained by the carriers for possible FMCSA inspection.

( c) Verification of loss: When an asserted claim for loss of an entire package or an entire shipment cannot be otherwise authenticated upon investigation, the carrier shall obtain from the consignee of the shipment involved a certified statement in writing that the property for which the claim is filed has not been received from any other source.

§ 370.9 Disposition of Claims:

(a) Each carrier subject to 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B which receives a written or electronically transmitted claim for loss or damage to baggage or for loss, damage, injury, or delay to property transported shall pay, decline, or make a firm compromise settlement offer in writing or electronically to the claimant within 120 days after receipt of the claim by the carrier; Provided, however, That, if the claim cannot be processed and disposed of within 120 days after the receipt thereof, the carrier shall at that time and at the expiration of each succeeding 60-day period while the claim remains pending, advise the claimant in writing or electronically of the status of the claim and the reason for the delay in making final disposition thereof and it shall retain a copy of such advice to the claimant in its claim file thereon.

(b) When settling a claim for loss or damage, a common carrier by motor vehicle of household goods as defined in § 375.1(b)(1) of this chapter shall use the replacement costs of the lost or damaged item as a base to apply a depreciation factor to arrive at the current actual value of the lost or damaged item: Provided, That where an item cannot be replaced or no suitable replacement is obtainable, the proper measure of damages shall be the original costs, augmented by a factor derived from a consumer price index, and adjusted downward by a factor depreciation over average useful life. 

§ 370.11 Processing of Salvage:

(a) Whenever baggage or material, goods, or other property transported by a carrier subject to the provisions in this part is damaged or alleged to be damaged and is, as a consequence thereof, not delivered or is rejected or refused upon tender thereof to the owner, consignee, or person entitled to receive such property, the carrier, after giving due notice, whenever practicable to do so, to the owner and other parties that may have an interest therein, and unless advised to the contrary after giving such notice, shall undertake to sell or dispose of such property directly or by the employment of a competent salvage agent. The carrier shall only dispose of the property in a manner that will fairly and equally protect the best interests of all persons having an interest therein. The carrier shall make an itemized record sufficient to identify the property involved so as to be able to correlate it to the shipment or transportation involved, and claim, if any, filed thereon. The carrier also shall assign to each lot of such property a successive lot number and note that lot number on its record of shipment and claim, if any claim is filed thereon.

(b) Whenever disposition of salvage material or goods shall be made directly to an agent or employee of a carrier or through a salvage agent or company in which the carrier or one or more of its directors, officers, or managers has any interest, financial or otherwise, that carrier's salvage records shall fully reflect the particulars of each such transaction or relationship, or both, as the case may be.

( c) Upon receipt of a claim on a shipment on which salvage has been processed in the manner prescribed in this section, the carrier shall record in its claim file thereon the lot number assigned, the amount of money recovered, if any, from the disposition of such property, and the date of transmittal of such money to the person or persons lawfully entitled to receive the same.

SOME RECENT CASES PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF HOW AND WHY THE REGULATIONS ARE IMPORTANT:

STEVEN MOSHLAK, Plaintiff v. ALLIED VAN LINES, INC., Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29563 July 20, 2005, Decided

This case involved a claim for damaged household goods. The Claimant demanded payment for a long list of damaged property, however not all of the property was listed. The court allowed recovery for only those items for which Claimant provided a written claim citing the regulation 49 CFR 370.3. No written demand means no recovery!

JOHN MOLLOY, Plaintiff -vs- ALLIED VAN LINES, INC., Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ORLANDO DIVISION 267 F. Supp. 2d 1246; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10474 May 28, 2003, Decided

In this case, the primary issue was whether Molloy’s attorney correspondence to Allied provided a sufficient claim of determinable damages. Molloy's attorney sent a letter to Allied which included a lengthy narration of the event explaining Allied's responsibility for the claimed loss, as well as a fifteen-page list detailing the lost and damaged property. The letter provided specific dollar estimates of the value of approximately 93% of the lost and damaged items on the list -- some 615 missing items. Allied argued that it was not liable because: Molloy’s letter did not provide specific dollar estimates for the remaining 7% of the listed items -- the repair of some 39 damaged antiques (and the replacement of four items that were not delivered). (But even for those items, Molloy offered Allied appraisals.); and Malloy’s failure to pay Allied’s charges upon delivery, as required by the bill of lading, precluded his claims. The Court determined, that while letters from the shipper’s attorney did not individually satisfy the claim requirements of identifying the shipped property and requesting a determinable amount of money, taken together, the letters contained facts sufficient to identify the shipper property and to advise Allied that Molloy sought damages in a determinable, if not specified, amount. Further, §14706 (the Carmack Amendment) did not require that Molloy pay Allied’s charges as a prerequisite to pursuing his claims. Also, the bill of lading only required payment upon delivery and acceptance of the goods, and Molloy’s refusal to sign the delivery release clearly indicated that he did not in fact accept the delivery. According to the Court, a reasonably accurate indication of the value of the property is sufficient, particularly when supported by additional documentation (such as appraisal reports) made available to the carrier within the time period required by the bill of lading. However, rough or unreasonable estimates of damages, standing alone, do not meet the requirement of a specified or determinable or damaged during interstate transportation. In order to establish a prima facie case under the Carmack Amendment, Molloy need not show that he made payment. Rather, Molloy must show that the goods were delivered to Allied in good condition; that a considerable portion did not arrive; that the portion that did arrive was damaged or diminished; and, that Molloy has suffered specific damages as a result. Molloy has met this burden. Molloy's claims are not barred by his failure to pay for the shipment.

SIEMENS POWER TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 420 F.3d 1243; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17202; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 839 August 16, 2005, Decided

This appeal presents two issues of first impression in our circuit: (1) whether a shipper's timely compliance with the minimum claim filing requirements in 49 C.F.R. § 1005.2(b), a regulation promulgated by the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC"), is a prerequisite to filing suit against a carrier under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706; and if so, (2) what standard should be applied to determine whether a shipper has adhered to the regulation's requirement that a claim contain "a specified or determinable" amount of damages. We conclude that the notice of claim for damage caused to an electrical transformer shipped by rail, submitted by Siemens Power Transmission and Distribution, Inc. ("Siemens"), to Norfolk Southern Railroad ("NSR"), satisfies the minimum claim requirements of § 1005.2(b) as a matter of law. We thus REVERSE and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.  

FACTS:

In the Spring of 1999, Siemens entered into an agreement with Florida Power and Light Company ("FP&L") for the sale of an electrical transformer. As part of the agreement, Siemens agreed to arrange and pay for the transportation and delivery of the transformer to FP&L's facility in Florida. In order to carry out this obligation, Siemens retained a transportation consultant, Tranco, Inc. ("Tranco"), to arrange for shipment of the transformer from Norfolk, Virginia, to Florida. Edward Henry, Tranco's president, acted as Siemens's agent for purposes of communicating with rail carriers. In March 1999, Henry approached NSR about possibly shipping the transformer to Florida by rail.

Additionally, Siemens installed an electronic impact recorder to record any excessive shocks that might occur during transportation and cause damage to the transformer. Shipped from Germany by ocean vessel, the transformer arrived in Norfolk, Virginia, on 15 January 2000. On 17 January 2000, Henry issued NSR a Straight Bill of Lading ("the Bill of Lading"). The Bill of Lading incorporated by reference the terms of the Uniform Straight Bill of Lading ("USBL"). Pursuant to the Bill of Lading, NSR undertook the carriage of the transformer to FP&L's facility in Florida. The transformer arrived at FP&L's facility on 28 January 2000. The Uniform Straight Bill of Lading provides, in relevant part:  As a condition precedent to recovery, claims must be filed in writing with the carrier within nine months after delivery of the property. Where claims are not filed in accordance with the foregoing provisions, no carrier hereunder shall be liable, and such claims will not be paid. NSR made arrangements with Florida East Coast Railroad ("FECR") to complete the last portion of the delivery. The transformer was interchanged to the FECR in Jacksonville, Florida.  After the transformer arrived, the electronic impact recorder that had been installed in the transformer was retrieved and read. The recorder indicated that the transformer had been exposed to forces in excess of Siemens's established thresholds for safe carriage of the device. Additional tests revealed that the transformer was not operating properly and needed repair. According to Siemens, all of the forces that caused damage to the transformer had occurred while NSR had custody and control over the device. NSR maintains that the damaging "shocks were recorded at different times during the transportation of the transformer, both before, during, and after the time NSR was in possession of the transformer."

On 1 March 2000, Henry sent NSR a letter indicating Siemens's intent to claim the costs of the repair of the transformer: Please accept this letter as our intent to file a claim for damage to an electrical transformer moving from the Port of Norfolk, VA to Titusville, FL on QTTX-131117, 1/21/00. The computerized impact recorder showed longitudinal impacts on 1/21/00 at 4.85, 5.95 and 4.37 G's. Time approximately 4:00 P.M. The load was in a train moving from Crew, VA to Linwood, NC. Upon an interior inspection damage was noted and Siemens technical engineers are evaluating the damage. At this time we cannot state a cost for repairs but will send you a report when available. Siemens estimated repairs at $ 25,000,00. On 2 March 2000, Henry sent a fax to NSR "regarding [its] possible claim" and invited NSR to send a representative to an inspection of the transformer conducted by a Siemens team. According to Siemens, NSR neither responded to either communication nor sent a representative to the inspection. After inspecting the transformer in Florida, Siemens decided to ship the transformer back to Germany for repairs. By letter dated 5 April 2000, Henry informed NSR that "at this time, Siemens is estimating a total cost of $700,000.00 - 800,000.00 and that is the amount of our claim. This covers transportation back to Germany, repairs, and return to FP&L at Cape Canaveral, FL.". Henry also stated that "Mr. Costa, Siemens insurance company's representative, will be inspecting the unit at Cape Canaveral on Monday, April 10, 2000. We feel [NSR] should have their representative at this inspection to protect your interests.". According to Siemens, NSR sent a transformer consultant to conduct an investigation of the transformer. On 18 April 2000, Henry wrote NSR and stated that it planned to ship the transformer to Germany "unless [it] heard differently from [NSR] within 72 hours." After the transformer arrived in Germany, Henry told NSR that the transformer would be "opened for inspection" on 14 June 2000 "so if [NSR] wanted [its inspector] at this inspection he could make plans to attend."

In September 2002, Siemens initiated an action against NSR in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and sought $791,136 for damages to the transformer. Siemens alleged that it had timely filed a proper claim for damages with NSR prior to bringing suit. At the close of discovery, NSR moved for summary judgment on the ground that Siemens had not satisfied the condition precedent for bringing suit because it had not filed a valid claim with NSR within nine months of the damage to the transformer. The district Court ruled in favor of the NSR. Siemens filed a timely notice of appeal. In summary Siemens argued on appeal that the district court committed error in concluding that its letters to NSR did not constitute a valid claim such that it may bring suit in district court and that the $700,000 to $800,000 damage estimate was sufficient to comply with the regulation of application of the ICC Regulations.

The Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act imposes liability on common carriers for the actual loss of or damage to shipments in interstate commerce. 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1). Section (e) of the Carmack Amendment provides that "[a] carrier may not provide by rule, contract, or otherwise, a period of less than nine months for filing a claim against it under this section and a period of less than two years for bringing a civil action against it under this section." 49 U.S.C. § 14706(e). Consistent with this section, the USBL requires that the shipper must provide the carrier with a notice of claim for damages "within nine months" of delivery of the cargo "as a condition precedent to recovery." The standard for evaluating claims submitted pursuant to the Carmack Amendment initially was set forth by the Supreme Court in Georgia, Florida and Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190, 36 S. Ct. 541, 60 L. Ed. 948 (1916). n7 In that case, the Court stated that the purpose of a requirement in a bill of lading that claims for damages be presented in writing within a certain time after delivery was not to allow the carrier to avoid liability, but to "secure reasonable notice" for the carrier. Id. at 198, 36 S. Ct. at 545. Accordingly, the Court held that such requirements "did not require documents in a particular form," so long as their purpose was served. The Court also stated that the requirements "[were] addressed to a practical exigency and . . . [were] to be construed in a practical way." One year later, in St. Louis, Iron Mountain, & Southern Railway Co. v. Starbird, the Court again discussed the purpose of such requirements. The Court noted that they served to "put[] in permanent form the evidence of an intention to claim damages, . . . call the attention of the carrier to the condition of the freight, and enable it to make such investigation as the facts of the case require." 243 U.S. 592, 605, 37 S. Ct. 462, 468, 61 L. Ed. 917 (1917). Courts applying the Blish Milling standard assessed liberally written claims by shippers and generally held that the claims were sufficient so long as they gave the carrier "reasonable notice" of the claim. See, e.g., Wisconsin Packing Co., v. Indiana Refrigerator Lines, Inc., 618 F.2d 441, 444 (7th Cir. 1980); Thompson v. James G. McCarrick Co., 205 F.2d 897, 901 (5th Cir. 1953) ("There is no requirement that a written instrument be submitted in detail or that the cause and exact amount of damage be stated thereon in order to constitute a valid claim."). According to the Court, the ICC regulations provide "minimum filing requirements" for a written notice of claim. § 1005.2(b). According to the regulations, a written or electronic communication complies sufficiently "with the provisions for filing claims embraced in the bill of lading or other contract of carriage" if it contains "(1) . . . facts sufficient to identify the baggage or shipment (or shipments) of property, (2) [an assertion of] . . . liability for alleged loss, damage, injury, or delay, and (3) . . . [a] claim for the payment of a specified or determinable amount of money." Additionally, the regulations dictate that when a claim is filed for an "uncertain amount, such as '$ 100 more or less,' the carrier . . .shall determine the condition of the baggage or shipment involved at the time of delivery by it, if it was delivered, and shall ascertain as nearly as possible the extent, if any, of the loss or damage for which it may be responsible." § 1005.2(d). The carrier, however, "shall not . . . voluntarily pay a claim under such circumstances unless and until" the shipper submits a claim containing "a specified or determinable amount of money." .

We have not yet expressly held that the ICC's minimum claim requirements apply to litigated claims, as opposed to claims that are resolved voluntarily, but implicitly, we seem to have assumed as much. In Konst v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., we held that a claimant could invoke the presumption that a railroad carrier had received a properly mailed claim so that the claim could be considered "filed" within the meaning of 49 C.F.R. § 1005.2. 71 F.3d 850, 851-52, 855 (11th Cir. 1996). In so holding, we did not explicitly address whether § 1005 applies to contested as well as uncontested claims, but we applied the regulation without discussion and described § 1005.2 as "the federal regulations governing the minimum requirements for making a damages claim against a common carrier."

Our assumption in Konst is supported by all but one circuit to have addressed the issue. The First, Second, and Ninth Circuits have held that the regulations apply to all claims, whether contested or voluntarily settled. See Nedlloyd Lines, B.V. Corp., v. Harris Transport Co., 922 F.2d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1991); Pathway Bellows, Inc. v. Blanchette, 630 F.2d 900, 904 (2d Cir. 1980); Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. G. I. Trucking Co., 1 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir. 1993). The Fifth and Sixth Circuits applied the ICC regulations to litigated claims without explicitly ruling on the issue. See Salzstein v.Bekins Van Lines, Inc., 993 F.2d 1187, 1188 (5th Cir. 1993); Trepel v. Roadway Express, Inc., 194F.3d 708, 711-12 (6th Cir. 1999). The Seventh Circuit, in contrast, has concluded that the ICC regulations apply only to uncontested claims. Wisconsin Packing, 618 F.2d at 445. Reasoning that § 1005.2(d) prohibits carriers from voluntarily paying claims for uncertain amounts, that the legislative proposals accompanying the ICC regulations differentiate throughout between "'disputed claims'" and "'claims determinations,'" id. at 445, and that "the purpose of the regulation was to make claim settlement more expeditious by providing procedures for the voluntary disposition of claims by carriers," The Seventh Circuit held that the sufficiency of a shipper's claim should be assessed by the old Blish Milling "reasonable notice" standard, id.  After reviewing this precedent from other circuits and the contentions of the parties, we agree with the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits that at least the minimum claim requirements contained in section 1005.2(b) apply to contested as well as voluntarily resolved claims.

We are persuaded by the record in this proceeding that our regulations should embrace the full range of matters relating to the filing of claims, including a prescription of minimum filing requirements and a consideration of documents that do not constitute claims, and claims for uncertain amounts ...... Thus, the rules set forth in Sections 1005.1 and 1005.2 . . . first establish their overall applicability and then set out the manner and form in which loss and damage claims must be filed by claimants in order to accomplish the improvements shown to be required in the public interest in this area.

Ex Parte 263, 340 I.C.C. at 555-56. Finally, as noted in Konst, the regulations require carriers to fulfill certain obligations once a claim is received. See Konst, 71 F.3d at 853. Applying the regulations to all claims gives the carriers standards by which to recognize valid claims when they receive them. See Pathway Bellows, Inc., 630 F.2d at 904.

Assessing Compliance with the ICC Regulations:  Having concluded that the minimum claim requirements in 49 C.F.R. § 1005.2(b) govern Siemens's claim, we must now determine whether the regulation requires that a written claim specify a precise dollar amount. Although, in Farmland Industries, we agreed with the district court that "one of the principal functions of the notice requirement in the bill of lading is to allow the carrier to exactly compute its losses," 733 F.2d at 1510, we have never expressly ruled on this issue. As explained previously, longstanding federal common law established prior to the promulgation of the ICC regulations provided that the sufficiency of claims should be judged "in a practical way" in light of the claims' purpose: securing reasonable notice for the carrier so that it can conduct an independent investigation. See Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. at 198, 36 S. Ct. at 545; St. Louis, Iron Mountain, 243 U.S. at 605, 37 S. Ct. at 468.  We find no evidence that the ICC intended to serve a purpose radically different from this one in promulgating the regulations. See Pathway Bellows, 630 F.2d at 903 n.5. To the contrary, portions of [*1252] the regulations and their accompanying source material indicate that the ICC meant to encourage carriers to investigate claims independently. See 49 C.F.R. 1005.4(a); Ex Parte No. 263, 340 I.C.C. at 560. Further, as the Second Circuit reasoned, the ICC regulations do not seem aimed at affording carriers an unfair opportunity to escape liability for damages that occur during shipping. The minimum claim requirements "appear to call for no more information than one ordinarily would expect a claim for damages to contain, and compliance with these requirements is neither onerous nor unreasonable." Pathway Bellows, 630 F.2d at 903 n.5. Thus, because the purpose of the regulations is consistent with longstanding common law, we interpret the minimum claim requirements with a presumption in favor of the Blish Milling common law principles. See United States v. Texas, 507 U.S. at 534, 113 S. Ct. at 1634.

Read literally, as by the district court, § 1005.2(b) could be construed to invalidate written claims that provide an estimated damages range, with minimum and maximum values, on the grounds that such a range is not "specified or determinable," 49 C.F.R. § 1005.2(b). See, e.g., Delphax Sys. v. Mayflower Transit, Inc., 54 F. Supp. 2d. 60, 64 (D. Mass. 1999) (holding that a range of $ 40,000 to $ 50,000 is not "specified or determinable"). Such a narrow construction, however, undercuts the regulation's purpose, which, as we have explained, is "not to permit the carrier to escape liability but to insure that the carrier has enough information to begin processing the claim." Trepel, 194 F.3d at 713. 'While it is true that the language of a statute should be interpreted according to its ordinary, contemporary and common meaning, this plain-meaning rule should not be applied to produce a result which is actually inconsistent with the policies underlying the statute.'" Bragg v. Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc., 374 F.3d 1060, 1068 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (noting this rule and applying it to the interpretation of a regulation). We thus reject the district court's construction.

Keeping in mind the purpose of the ICC regulations and the Supreme Court's admonishment that we should interpret statutes and regulations in light of their common-law backdrop, we construe 49 C.F.R. § 1005.2(b) liberally and conclude that Siemens's notice of claim, which specified a damages range of $700,000 to $ 800,000, satisfies the minimum claim requirements. Siemens's letters constituted a written notice of damage with a clearly communicated intent to hold NSR liable. Additionally, the letters indicated that Siemens's claim would be significant and gave NSR more than enough information to begin an investigation, which NSR in fact did in sending its expert to inspect the transformer in Florida.Finally, the range specified by Siemens included a minimum and maximum amount, unlike "$ 100 more or less," 49 C.F.R. § 1005.2(d), and the actual amount of damages it claimed in court fell within that range.

We find unpersuasive all of NSR's arguments to the contrary. First, we reject NSR's contention that the majority of circuit courts to have addressed the issue have required "actual compliance" with the "specified and determinable amount" provision so as to bar Siemens's claim here. In all of the circuit court cases that NSR cites, our sister circuits have addressed situations in which the shipper provided the carrier with no damage amount at all. In Salzstein, the Fifth Circuit held that a notice which did not specify any damage amount did not suffice. 993 F.2d at 1189, 1190-91. In Nedlloyd Lines, the First Circuit ruled that letters that "in [no] way specified the amount of money claimed" fell short of 49 C.F.R. § 1005.2(b)'s requirements. 922 F.2d at 908. Similarly, in Pathway Bellows, the Second Circuit deemed insufficient a claim that did not include an amount of damages or assert that the carrier was liable. 630 F.2d at 901, 903, 904 (assessing a letter which stated "although we have contacted your company earlier, the purpose of this letter is to state, in writing, that we are in the process of filing a claim for freight damage of a shipment"). Accordingly, these cases do not stand for the proposition that the shipper must strictly comply with the regulation by providing a single, certain damage amount.  

On the other hand, two circuits have held that an estimate of damage was sufficient in part because the carriers had begun to investigate the claims. In Insurance Company of North America, the Ninth Circuit adopted a "substantial compliance" standard and held that a written notice of damage which "clearly communicated intent to hold [the carrier] liable" was sufficient under the regulations, even though it only estimated the amount of damages. 1 F.3d at 904, 907 & n.3. In Trepel, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the purpose of the claim regulation is to "insure that the carrier has enough information to begin processing the claim" and found that a claim for an amount of damage "'to be determined but not to exceed $ 150,000.00 '" substantially complied. 194 F.3d at 712, 713. Not only do we find this reasoning more compelling, we also believe that the factual circumstances at issue in these cases are more analogous here than those addressed in Salzstein, Nedlloyd, or Pathway Bellows.

 We are mindful that at least two district courts have applied Nedlloyd or Pathway Bellows to hold that a claim which includes a damages estimate, rather than a single, certain damage amount, falls short of § 1005.2(b)'s "specified or determinable" amount requirement. See Delphax Sys., 54 F. Supp. 2d at 64; Bobst Div. of Bobst Champlain, Inc. v. IML-Freight Inc., 566 F. Supp. 665, 668-69 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (holding that a claim which estimated damages at $ 100,000 was neither specified nor determinable). Not only are district courts persuasive authority only, see Dow Jones & Co, Inc. v. Kaye, 256 F.3d1251, 1258 (11th Cir. 2001), but also we reject the district court's conclusions in these cases for the same reasons, discussed previously, for which we reverse the district court here.

Second, we do not read Farmland Industries to establish a rule that a claim is not valid unless it includes an exact amount of damages. We did not address in that case whether a claim is sufficient if it includes a damages range rather than a single amount. Instead, based on the particular factual circumstances presented, we declined to apply a rule that a shipper could be excused from filing a claim within the prescribed nine-month period if the carrier had obtained "'actual knowledge'" of all information that a claim would have provided. 733 F.2d at 1510. Moreover, our agreement with the district court that a "principal function of the notice requirement in the bill of lading is to allow the carrier to exactly compute its losses," id., is consistent with our conclusion here. When a shipper provides a carrier with a relatively narrow range of damages, the carrier is afforded the opportunity to investigate the claim and may "exactly" compute a damages amount. As Siemens argues, any carrier faced with a large claim would be neglectful of its duties if it simply paid a large claim without making any independent efforts to verify the shipper's estimate.

Finally, we disagree with NSR's assertion that our decision to view § 1005.2(b) liberally in light of its purpose will allow shippers to bypass the mandated claims process by asking a court to determine whether a carrier should pay a claim that was not presented properly in the first place. As the Ninth Circuit explained, "we fail to see why shippers will be eager to circumvent the notice requirements, avoid voluntary settlement, and embark upon expensive, time-consuming litigation to recover their damages." Insurance Co. of N.A., 1 F.3d at 907 .

Because, in this case, Siemens indicated its intent to hold NSR liable, gave NSR multiple opportunities to inspect the transformer, and provided a damages range with a minimum and maximum amount in which its claim ultimately fell, we consider Siemens's claim sufficient under 49 C.F.R. § 1005.2(b) even though Siemens did not specify a single, certain damages amount. Therefore, we reverse thedecision of the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CONCLUSION:

In this appeal, we determined whether a notice of claim submitted by Siemens to NSR regarding damage to an electrical transformer shipped in January 2000 satisfied the minimum claim filing requirements in 49 C.F.R. § 1005, a regulation promulgated by the ICC. The district court found that Siemens's claim was not sufficient because, in stating that its transformer suffered damages somewhere in the range of $700,000 - 800,000, it did not state a "specified or determinable" amount as required by § 1005.2(b). First, we hold that the district court correctly stated that § 1005.2(b) applies to litigated as well as uncontested claims, and it governs Siemens's claim here. Second, we conclude that the district court erred in determining that Siemens's claim was not valid. Because we construe § 1005.2(b) liberally in view of its purpose, which is to secure reasonable notice for the carrier so that it may conduct an independent investigation of a shipper's claim, we hold that Siemens's claim met the requirements of § 1005.2(b) as a matter of law. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

◄back to Transportation News and Updates