Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C.


Transportation Brief: Spotlight on Cargo Claim Practice

Thomas Gonzalez, Kathleen C. Jeffries, Clifford W. Lauchlan

February 2, 2022

Many people assume the Carmack Amendment (Carmack) exclusively controls their cargo claim disputes related to interstate shipments. However, due to certain contract provisions in shipper or broker/carrier agreements, Carmack may take a back seat. A contract that incorporates Carmack for handling cargo claims but also contains clauses that conflict with Carmack can be a recipe for a dispute.

Depending on how they are worded, contract clauses such as claim-filing deadlines, limitations of liability, waiver of salvage value, seal policies, and choice of venue provisions can conflict with Carmack. When a cargo claim arises, one party to the dispute may attempt to invoke a specific contract clause. The other party may then refer to Carmack as a defense to negate the contract clause. The resulting standoff can fracture business relationships or lead to litigation.

Both parties to the contract should be on the lookout for inconsistencies between contractual cargo claim provisions and the law. Equally important, transportation providers should be careful to avoid inconsistencies within their own documents (such as tariffs, bills of lading, credit applications, and contracts). Unfortunately, it is often not until a court interprets the contract with conflicting provisions that the parties have a definitive answer to their dispute. The firm’s Cargo Claim & Freight Charge group, led by Kathleen Jeffries, Thomas Gonzalez, and Clifford Lauchlan, helps clients navigate the cargo claims process, both pre- and post-suit and can be a useful resource for shippers and transportation companies for reviewing existing or potential contractual provisions.


Scopelitis’ Transportation Brief® is intended as a report to our clients and friends on developments affecting the transportation industry. The published material does not constitute an exhaustive legal study and should not be regarded or relied upon as individual legal advice or opinion.

Also in this issue:
  • Transportation Brief: Unclaimed Property: A Lurking Liability for the Unwary
    by Kelli M. Block
    The efforts of many states to disgorge businesses of funds that may be cast as “unclaimed property” have continued unabated into 2022. Read more from Scopelitis about why transportation companies are often affected by this and what they can do to limit its exposure in the event a state unclaimed property auditor comes knocking.
  • Transportation Brief: M&A Considerations for Air and Ocean Forwarders
    by Braden K. Core , Nathaniel G. Saylor
    Freight forwarders that engage in air and ocean moves have become attractive targets for strategic and private-equity-backed acquisitions over the past several years. Buyers should be aware that change-in-control notice and approval processes for these businesses are more complicated when compared to U.S. surface-transportation providers. Read more about scenarios to consider, including but not limited to a few that have the potential to complicate and delay transactions.
  • Transportation Brief: Transportation Worker Exemption from the FAA Requires a “Contract of Employment”
    by Braden K. Core , Prasad Sharma
    Employers have successfully used arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to resolve disputes on an individual basis. Unfortunately for transportation providers, the FAA does not apply to “contracts of employment” of drivers and other transportation workers who are engaged in interstate commerce. Read more about a recent decision from Massachusetts that reminds us that if the arbitration provision is not in a “contract of employment,” the FAA may still apply.
  • Transportation Brief: Supreme Court Stays and OSHA Withdraws Vaccine/Testing Mandate
    by A. Jack Finklea , David D. Robinson
    It appears that we have arrived at some finality in the on-again-off-again life cycle of OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). Given the Court’s determination that OSHA had likely exceeded its authority here, large employers have understandably set aside their immediate plans to implement the ETS vaccine/testing protocols. However, important considerations remain because many carriers continue to face customer vaccination requirements as well as the Canadian vaccination requirement for drivers crossing the border into Canada.
  • Transportation Brief: For the Record, Winter 2022
    News about Scopelitis Law Firm
  • On the Road
    Scopelitis attorneys are often invited to participate in meetings with transportation industry leaders. Learn more about their trips this quarter.
  • Dispatches
    Transportation Industry News & Trends
Full Version