Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

November 09, 2017 | Blog Post| Don't Wreck Your Carmack Claim: Requirements for the Written Notice of Claim

Carmack claims are unique animals.  Carmack provides a shipper—or its subrogating insurance company—with the sole remedy for damages sustained when goods are shipped between states.  As the sole remedy, it’s imperative that a claimant strictly comply with Carmack’s notice of claim requirements and any additional notice requirements outlined in the bill of lading.  As subrogation professionals, when a cargo claim comes in, the bill of lading should be the first document reviewed to determine what needs to be done—in addition to the five items listed below—to provide proper notice of the claim to the carrier.  Failure to file proper written notice will bar the claim. 

The Code of Federal Regulation outlines the minimum requirements necessary to file a proper notice of claim.  A notice of claim is sufficient only if it meets the following five requirements: 

1. The claim must be a written communication. The notice of claim can be electronic only if the shipper and carrier agree that the notice can be made electronically.  Absent such an agreement, the written notice of claim should be in the form of a letter to the offending carrier.

2. The claim must be filed with a proper carrier within the time limits specified in the bill of lading. Carmack requires that carriers provide at least 9 months for claimants to file their notice of claim.  A more benevolent carrier may provide additional time to file the notice of claim, but this is rare.  The 9 month time period has been interpreted to begin running the day after the delivery of the cargo where the bill of lading states the notice must be filed “within nine (9) months after delivery.” Where the bill of lading is silent on the written notice filing period, the deadline should be calculated from the date of delivery, not the day after.   A claim is “filed” with the carrier when it is delivered to and received by the carrier.  As such, the written notice must be placed in the mail with sufficient time for it to be delivered and received by the carrier before the 9 month notice period expires.  To memorialize the delivery date, a claimant may consider sending the notice of claim via certified mail return receipt requested so there is proof of delivery and receipt.

3. The claim must contain facts sufficient to identify the shipped property. To adequately identify the property, the notice should include the bill of lading number or shipment number, the date of shipment, the date of delivery, a description of the goods, and the identity of the shipper, carrier, and consignee (the entity receiving the shipped goods).  It is a best practice to also enclose a copy of the bill of lading with the written notice.  Providing such detailed information will ensure that the carrier can easily identify the shipment at issue.

4. The claim must assert liability for the alleged loss or damage.  The written notice should unequivocally state that the carrier is liable for the damaged goods.  There should be no question that the shipper is blaming the carrier for the damaged goods.

5. The claim must seek the “payment of a specified or determinable amount of money.” Failure to include such damage information can be fatal to a Carmack claim.  There is a split in the federal circuits on the degree of specificity a claimant must include in its notice with respect to “payment of a specified or determinable amount of money.”  The First, Second, and Fifth Circuits are considered strict compliance jurisdictions—meaning the notice must include an exact dollar value.  The Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits utilize a substantial compliance standard—meaning a claimant is not required to state a specific amount but instead must provide a reasonably accurate indication of the value of the claim. Rough or unreasonable estimates will not meet the substantial compliance standard.  Whether in a strict compliance or substantial compliance jurisdiction, when notified of a cargo loss, claimants should immediately begin assessing and investigating damages so the dollar figure included in the notice of claim is as precise and accurate as possible.

Subrogation professionals must act fast to identify Carmack claims and gather the information necessary to issue the carrier proper written notice of the claim.  Failure to do so could wreck your Carmack claim before it gets started.  The attorneys at Butler have extensive experience handling Carmack claims.  Please feel free to contact shefner@butler.legal if you have further questions.

Scott Hefner

An Associate at Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP in Charlotte, NC. Scott practices in our Subrogation & Recovery department.

September 21, 2017 Blog PostThe Rule of Sevens: Evaluating Claims Involving a Child

As subrogation professionals, we may be tasked with evaluating property loss claims where a child caused or contributed to the property damage.  For example, is a child playing with matches or a lighter liable for a fire loss?  Or, is a child liable for driving a vehicle into the neighbor’s home? In some instances, a parent may be held liable for the child’s acts.   As more fully set forth below, when evaluating a claim involving a child, it is important to evaluate the age and capacity of the at-fault party, and to be familiar with state specific statutes regarding parental liability. 

Read More »
September 01, 2017 Blog PostHurricane Hindsight is 20/20

It took years of depositions and other discovery to realize that that most of my 2004-2005 hurricane condominium association claims were much simpler to defend than I thought.   The center of gravity of these claims was the proper calculation of Actual Cash Value (ACV).

Read More »
August 29, 2017 Blog PostThe Common Interest Doctrine: Maintaining Confidentiality

While confidentiality is usually destroyed when communications between an attorney and client take place in the presence of a third party or when work product is shared with others, those communications can remain protected if the common interest doctrine applies.

Read More »
August 23, 2017 Blog Post"It's Not Old, It's A Classic!": Risk in Aging Aircraft with GARA Protecting Manufacturers

The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (“GARA”) was a byproduct of aging aircraft, rising costs, and tort liability in the United States.  Congress was concerned that aircraft manufacturers were being devastated by liability costs for accidents occurring long after the planes left the manufacturer.  These liability costs drove up the price for aircraft beyond what the market would bear, and general aviation experienced a sharp decline.  The General Aviation Manufacturers Association reports the total U.S.-manufactured general aviation airplane shipments went from a high of 17,811 in 1978 to a low of 929 in 1994.  As a result many manufacturers stopped making certain model aircraft, including Cessna which ceased production of all piston aircraft in 1986. 

Read More »
August 15, 2017 Blog PostThe ABC's of ACV in Subrogation Claims

Oftentimes, during the course of a subrogation claim, third-party liability adjusters will refuse to pay the full amount of the “Repair Cost Value” (“RCV”) of the damages demanded, and contend that they only owe “Actual Cash Value” (“ACV”), regardless of the amount paid in the underlying first party property claim adjustment.   Oftentimes, this position is not necessarily predicated on a specific legal doctrine or theory, but rather a general “understanding” that is commonly used in the insurance context.   The true measure of damages, in the legal context, is always dictated by state law. 

Read More »
July 18, 2017 Blog PostSubrogation Following a Hurricane is All Hands on Deck

Hurricane season began June 1 st, and runs through November 30th.   However, we are about 30 days from approaching the peak of hurricane season, when the season becomes its most active.  Weather predictors are predicting an above-average number of storms this year, with 14 expected named storms.  As anyone who has worked “CAT” claims knows, when a hurricane hits, it’s “all hands on deck.”  This is true for subrogation professionals, as well.  There is a significant increase in the number of claims that must be triaged, with a goal of finding any claims that might have subrogation potential. 

Read More »
November 16, 2015 Blog PostWest Virginia Supreme Court Allows Landlord's Subrogation against Tenant

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals recently opened the door further for a landlord’s insurer subrogating against a tenant for damages to the landlord’s property.

Read More »
October 13, 2014 Blog PostIs Texas Following Florida's Lead On Changing The Economic Loss Rule?

Practicing in both Florida and Texas I have seen the Economic Loss Rule evolve over the years, and its direct impact on the recovery potential for our subrogation claims appears to be moving in a positive direction. Recently, the Texas Supreme Court held in a per curium opinion in Chapman Custom Homes, Inc. v. Dallas Plumbing Co., 2014 WL 4116839 (Tex. Aug. 22, 2014), that a claimant can now bring a tort claim (negligence, in this case) against a party, as well as a breach of contract claim. In doing so, the Court applied ...

Read More »
Key Points