AAA Storage Co. v. United States
AAA STORAGE CO., Inc. v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- dependency
Analysis
The court reviewed ICC orders establishing released rates for motor common carriers of household goods and found that the specific rate structure for liability up to $10,000 did not vary with declared value as required by statute. The court voided that specific rate component and remanded the matter to the ICC for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Voided the ICC's Order No. MC-505 regarding the rate of fifty cents per cwt. for liability up to $10,000 and the associated rate for liability exceeding $10,000.“We therefore hold that Order No. MC-505 is void in its fixing of the rate of fifty (50) cents per cwt. to be charged by the carrier for liability of the carrier for actual loss to the shipper, released to a value greater than sixty (60) cents per pound per article, up to a total of $10,000 per shipment. The rate to be charged under the order for liability for actual loss to the shipper in an amount to exceed $10,000 insofar as that rate is predicated upon the rate for liability for actual loss up to $10,000 is also void.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that Section 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act requires rates to be 'dependent upon or varying with declared or agreed values.' The ICC's order established a flat rate of 50 cents per cwt. for all shipments released to values greater than 60 cents per pound, up to the $10,000 cap. Because this rate did not change based on the specific value declared by the shipper (e.g., a shipment declared at $5,000 paid the same per-cwt. rate as one declared at $9,999), it failed to meet the statutory requirement. The court's conclusion that the rate is void for this specific statutory deficiency is legally sound. |
Upheld the validity of the ICC's actions in all other respects.“In all other respects the Court holds that the action of the Commission complained of is valid.” | agree with court The court rejected all other challenges raised by the plaintiffs. While the order does not detail the specific reasoning for rejecting the other claims, it affirms the general validity of the Commission's orders except for the specific statutory violation identified. This is a standard disposition for a partial remand. |
Remanded the matter to the Interstate Commerce Commission for further consideration and proceedings.“The matter is remanded to the Interstate Commerce Commission for further consideration and proceedings consistent herewith, and in the meanwhile the present injunction will remain in force, subject to dissolution on motion at the conclusion of such remanded proceedings.” | agree with court Remand is the appropriate remedy when an agency order is found to be partially invalid due to a failure to follow statutory mandates. The court retains jurisdiction to dissolve the injunction once the agency acts consistently with the court's ruling. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory text of Section 20(11) to the specific facts of the ICC's rate order. It identifies a clear statutory violation (a flat rate not varying with value) and provides the appropriate remedy (voiding the specific rate and remanding). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the legal issue presented.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This action was brought by plaintiffs, motor common carriers of household goods operating in interstate commerce pursuant to certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission, to enjoin, set aside, annul and suspend orders entered by the Interstate Commerce Commission in administrative proceedings identified as Ex Parte NC-19, Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, and Ex Parte MC-61, Released Rates of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods (including Released Rates Order No. MC-505), 95 M.C.C. 138 and 96 M.C.C. 196.
The Commission’s orders are reviewable in this Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1336, 1398, 2284, and 2321-2325, inclusive, Section 17(9) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 17(9), and under Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009.
Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., with leave of the Court, has intervened, seeking to uphold the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The plaintiffs have challenged the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission on several grounds and in several particulars. All of such challenges are rejected save one.
Section 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 20(11), (made applicable to motor common carriers including plaintiffs by Section 219 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 319) provides:
“ * * * Provided, however, That the provisions hereof respecting liability for full actual loss, damage, or injury, notwithstanding any limitation of liability or recovery or representation or agreement or release as to value, and declaring any such limitation to be unlawful and void, shall not apply, * * * second, to property, except ordinary livestock received for transportation concerning which the carrier shall have been or shall hereafter be expressly authorized or required by order of the Interstate Commerce Commission to establish and maintain rates dependent upon the value declared in writing by the shipper or agreed upon in writing as the released value of the property, in which case such declaration or agreement shall have no other effect than to limit liability and recovery to an amount not exceeding the value so declared or released, and shall not, as far as relates to values, be held to be a violation of section 10 of this title; and any tariff schedule which may be filed with the commission pursuant to such order shall contain specific reference thereto and may establish rates varying with the value so declared and agreed upon; and the commission is hereby empowered to make such order in cases where rates dependent upon and varying with declared or agreed *622values would, in its opinion, be just and reasonable under the circumstances and conditions surrounding the transportation * * (Emphasis added.)
By its Order No. MC-505 the Interstate Commerce Commission provided for released rates for the shipment of household goods in interstate commerce as follows:
“Released Values and Liability Limitations Transportation Rate Basis Storage in Transit Rate Basis Released to a value not exceeding sixty (60) cents per pound for the actual weight of any lost or damaged article or articles in a shipment. Base transportation rate. Base storage rates.
Released to a value greater than sixty (60) cents per pound per article. Base transportation rate plus an additional charge of fifty (50) cents per cwt. 110% of the base storage rates.
Where a shipment is released to a value greater than sixty (60) cents per pound per article, the carrier’s maximum liability shall be $10,000 per shipment, or the total value declared, whichever is greater.”
By amendment of October 9, 1964, the Commission revised its previous Order No. MC-505 to provide a further compensation in the form of a charge of $5.00 per $1,000 of value over the first $10,000.
With respect to the rate per cwt. over and above the base rate to be charged by a carrier under Order No. MC-505 to a shipper where the carrier is to be liable for the shipper’s actual loss up to an amount of $10,000, Order No. MC-505 establishes a rate which plainly is not “dependent upon or varying with declared or agreed values,” as required by the Act.
We therefore hold that Order No. MC-505 is void in its fixing of the rate of fifty (50) cents per cwt. to be charged by the carrier for liability of the carrier for actual loss to the shipper, released to a value greater than sixty (60) cents per pound per article, up to a total of $10,000 per shipment. The rate to be charged under the order for liability for actual loss to the shipper in an amount to exceed $10,000 insofar as that rate is predicated upon the rate for liability for actual loss up to $10,000 is also void.
In all other respects the Court holds that the action of the Commission complained of is valid.
The matter is remanded to the Interstate Commerce Commission for further consideration and proceedings consistent herewith, and in the meanwhile the present injunction will remain in force, subject to dissolution on motion at the conclusion of such remanded proceedings.