AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Estes bill of lading1/17/2024 ![]() ![]() On January 6, 2012, the Government moved to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ( RCFC ). On July 8, 2011, the case was transferred to the Claims Court. On February 3, 2010, Estes filed suit against Salem and the Government in district court seeking to recover $147,645.33 in freight charges for which it allegedly had not received payment from Salem or MCCS. After it became aware that Salem was failing to pay Estes and other carriers, MCCS began paying carriers directly, but only for shipments for which it had not yet paid Salem. Although MCCS paid Salem for some of the shipments, it appears that Salem never remitted payment to Estes. ![]() Following delivery, Estes invoiced MCX, care of Salem for freight charges. Each delivery receipt was signed by a representative of the MCCS or MCX location to which the goods were delivered. The delivery receipts also specified that charges should be billed to the Marine Corps Exchange. Pursuant to the Salem-MCCS contract, all bills of lading further indicated that third party freight charges were to be billed to Marine Corps Exchange C/O Salem Logistics. In some instances, goods were moved from a Navy Exchange location to an MCX location, or from one MCX location to another, in which case a government entity was listed as the shipper. US 3 bills of lading listed a MCCS or MCX destination as the consignee, and most bills of lading identified the thirdparty vendor as the shipper. Each shipment handled by Estes was identified by a bill of lading, a freight bill, and a delivery receipt. Salem further agreed not to represent itself as an agent or representative of MCCS. The contract provided that Salem would pay the carriers directly and then invoice MCCS. Specifically, upon being contacted by a vendor who received an order from MCCS or MCX, Salem would select a carrier to move the merchandise from the vendor to the MCCS/MCX destination. Under this contract, Salem agreed to provide MCCS with certain transportation and freight management services, including coordinating the pick-up, transport and delivery of vendor products to various MCCS or Marine Corps Exchange ( MCX ) 1 locations around the country. Salem arranged the shipments pursuant to a contract with MCCS ( the Salem-MCCS contract ). Estes and Salem do not have a written contract, and Estes handled all shipments under its common carrier tariff. The charges in question correspond to shipments arranged on behalf of MCCS by a freight broker, Salem Logistics ( Salem ), for deliveries between June 2008 and February 2009. BACKGROUND Estes, a federal motor carrier, seeks to recover from the Government freight charges incurred by Marine Corps Community Services ( MCCS ). For the reasons below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Estes Express Lines ( Estes ) appeals from a final order of the Court of Federal Claims ( Claims Court ) dismissing Estes s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. _ Before PROST, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. DELERY, Acting Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. VOLK, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendantappellee. MOSELEY, JR., Smith Moore Leatherwood, LLP, of Greenville, South Carolina, argued for plaintiffappellant. _ 2013-5056 _ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit _ ESTES EXPRESS LINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding that the bills of lading were sufficient to establish privity. 13706, which governs the liability of consignees for shipping charges incurred by a common carrier. The Claims Court dismissed, finding that there was no privity of contract between Estes and the government and rejecting a claim under 49 U.S.C. ![]() Estes sued Salem and the government, seeking to recover $147,645.33. After becoming aware that Salem was not paying carriers, MCCS began paying carriers directly, for shipments for which it had not yet paid Salem. MCCS paid Salem for some of the shipments Salem never paid Estes. All bills of lading indicated that “third party freight charges” were to be billed to “Marine Corps Exchange C/O Salem Logistics.” Delivery receipts specified that charges should be billed to the “Marine Corps Exchange” and were signed by a representative of the MCCS or MCX delivery location. Salem agreed not to represent itself as a representative of MCCS. ![]() The Salem-MCCS contract provided that Salem would pay carriers directly and invoice MCCS. Estes, a federal motor carrier, handled some shipments under its common carrier tariff, without a written contract. Salem, under contract, coordinated Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS) shipments around the country. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |