TruckDisp Cargo Claims and Carrier Liability Flashcards

A shipper files a cargo claim for $18,000 in damaged electronics. The carrier's tariff limits liability to $2.00 per pound, and the shipment weighed 500 lbs. The shipper did NOT declare excess value at booking. Under the Carmack Amendment, what is the maximum the carrier owes?

Answer: $1,000 — $2.00 × 500 lbs, capped by the filed tariff

Under the Carmack Amendment, carriers may limit liability below actual loss if the limitation is in a properly filed tariff, the shipper was given a reasonable opportunity to declare excess value, and the shipper chose not to. Here, $2.00 × 500 lbs = $1,000 is the enforceable cap. The shipper's failure to declare excess value waives the right to actual-loss recovery.

A carrier delivers a load of frozen seafood on time, but the consignee notices a subtle off-odor and refuses the shipment. The carrier disputes the claim, arguing the reefer unit maintained proper temperature throughout. Which documentation would be MOST decisive in the carrier's defense?

Answer: A continuous electronic temperature recorder (ETR) printout showing the reefer never exceeded 0°F during transit

An unbroken ETR printout directly refutes the claim that temperature deviation caused spoilage. It provides objective, time-stamped evidence that the carrier fulfilled its duty of care for the specific shipment in question. A clean BOL at origin only establishes condition at pickup; maintenance logs and prior receipts are circumstantial and don't speak to conditions during this transit.

A broker dispatches a carrier that later abandons a load mid-route. The shipper files a cargo claim against the broker directly. Under FMCSA regulations, which scenario would make the broker legally exposed to that cargo claim?

Answer: The broker selected a carrier whose MC authority had lapsed at the time of dispatch

Brokers have a duty of reasonable carrier selection under 49 CFR Part 371. Dispatching a carrier with lapsed or revoked authority is a direct breach of that duty, exposing the broker to negligent selection liability. The other options either describe normal business practices (rate negotiation, mutual indemnification) or situations that would actually reduce broker exposure (pre-existing direct relationship).

A shipper files a freight claim for $9,500 on Day 1. The carrier neither pays, declines, nor requests additional documentation within nine months. What is the shipper's correct next step and the applicable deadline?

Answer: File suit within 2 years of the day the carrier's 9-month disposition period expires

Under 49 U.S.C. § 14706 and Carmack Amendment case law, a carrier must pay, decline, or make a settlement offer within 9 months of receiving a written claim. If it does neither, the shipper may treat the claim as constructively denied. The 2-year statute of limitations to sue runs from the date the carrier's disposition period expires (i.e., 9 months after the claim was filed), not from an explicit denial letter.

A truck dispatcher books a high-value art shipment under a standard motor carrier contract. The shipper verbally informs the dispatcher that the cargo is worth $250,000, but this amount is NOT entered on the BOL, and no excess-value charge is paid. The cargo is stolen. Which outcome best reflects the legal reality?

Answer: The carrier owes its tariff-limited amount because the Carmack Amendment requires declared value to be in writing on the BOL to be enforceable

The Carmack Amendment's liability framework requires that excess-value declarations be documented — courts consistently hold that only a written, BOL-reflected declaration triggers the carrier's obligation to insure for higher value. Verbal notice, even to a dispatcher with actual knowledge, does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The carrier's tariff cap stands. The dispatcher may face internal liability for failing to document, but that is a separate commercial matter.

A carrier delivers machinery to a consignee who signs a clean delivery receipt. Three days later, the consignee discovers internal gear damage that was invisible at delivery. The carrier argues the claim is barred by the signed clean receipt. Which legal doctrine would the consignee most likely invoke to overcome this defense?

Answer: The concealed damage rule — under Carmack, a reasonable time to inspect applies to damage not apparent at delivery, typically allowing 5 days to file

The concealed (or latent) damage rule under Carmack allows a claimant to file even after signing a clean receipt, provided the damage was not reasonably discoverable at the time of delivery and notice is given within a reasonable period — typically interpreted as five business days for concealed damage. A clean receipt creates a rebuttable presumption of good delivery, but it is not an absolute bar when damage could not have been detected on visual inspection.