EPISODE · Jun 25, 2026 · 1 MIN
Case Explained: FinalOpinion in case# 23-1782
from DIFTCL: Federal Narrative Summaries · host amf-wp
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-25 The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Evansville Western Railway, Inc. (EVWR) and its denial of Lloyd’s motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding CSX Transportation, Inc., holding that both carriers validly limited their liability under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 11706. The court applied the standard that a carrier may limit liability if it (1) gives the shipper a reasonable opportunity to choose between two or more levels of liability, (2) obtains the shipper’s agreement to a specific choice, and (3) issues a receipt or bill of lading prior to shipment. The court distinguished the plaintiff’s reliance on *ABB Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.* by finding that, unlike in *ABB*, the shipper here (NRE) had actual knowledge of the carriers’ published price lists and explicitly chose lower rates associated with limited liability coverage because it maintained its own insurance. Regarding the specific contractual mechanism, the court determined that the Standard Transportation Commodity (STC) Code 3741110 listed on the bills of lading was an ambiguous term requiring extrinsic evidence to interpret. Relying on the shipper’s seventeen-year course of dealing with the carriers and his undisputed testimony that he understood the code signified a selection of the lower rate with its corresponding liability cap, the court found sufficient evidence to establish the parties’ intent. For EVWR, this established a $25,000 per-item limit; for CSX, it established a $10,000 per-item limit. The practical consequence is that Lloyd’s subrogation claim is limited to the maximum liability amounts specified in the shipping contracts ($25,000 for EVWR and $10,000 for CSX) plus prejudgment interest, rather than the full value of the destroyed locomotives. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.
NOW PLAYING
Case Explained: FinalOpinion in case# 23-1782
No transcript for this episode yet
Similar Episodes
May 9, 2026 ·49m
May 2, 2026 ·49m
Apr 25, 2026 ·49m
Apr 21, 2026 ·13m
Apr 19, 2026 ·16m
Apr 18, 2026 ·49m