Rush Industries, Inc. v. MWP Contractors, LLC
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-00810-TDS-LPA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999182279]. [13-1019]
Appeal: 13-1019
Doc: 28
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 1 of 13
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1019
RUSH INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MWP CONTRACTORS, LLC; BRANN’S TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00810-TDS-LPA)
Submitted:
July 25, 2013
Decided:
August 28, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth L. Jones, CARRUTHERS & ROTH, P.A., Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Kenneth J. Gumbiner, HIGGINS BENJAMIN,
PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee MWP Contractors,
LLC.
Stanley F. Hammer, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP,
High Point, North Carolina, for Appellee Brann’s Transport
Services, Inc.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-1019
Doc: 28
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 2 of 13
PER CURIAM:
Appellant
Rush
Industries,
a
furniture
manufacturing
company, challenges the district court’s decision in favor of
Appellee MWP Contractors, who coordinated shipping of a used
panel
saw
that
failed
to
operate
Industries’ manufacturing plant.
upon
arrival
at
Rush
Finding no error, we affirm
the district court’s ruling.
I.
In late 2006, Rush Industries purchased a used Italian-made
Gabbiani
panel
saw
through
an
internet
auction
for
$14,300.
Michael Rush, the owner of Rush Industries, purchased the saw
for use at the company’s plant in Americus, Georgia.
witness
testified
already
beyond
at
its
trial
expected
that
the
useful
An expert
twelve-year-old
life.
The
bill
saw
was
of
sale
provides that Rush Industries made its purchase of the saw “AS
IS, WHERE IS, WITH ALL FAULTS.”
After purchasing the saw, Rush
traveled to South Boston, Virginia, where the saw was located in
the facility of a defunct business called D-Scan.
After Rush
videotaped an operator make a successful demonstration cut using
the saw, he made arrangements with MWP to disassemble, package,
coordinate shipping, and install the saw at Rush Industries’
Americus plant.
Rush sent a check to MWP on December 8, 2006,
for an initial payment of $5,300.
2
Appeal: 13-1019
Doc: 28
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 3 of 13
The saw remained in D-Scan’s facility until January 8th,
2007.
During that time, MWP made basic repairs to the saw at
Rush Industries’ request.
MWP contracted with Appellee Brann’s
Transport Services to move the saw to Americus.
loaded the saw onto two Brann’s trucks.
MWP employees
However, MWP did not
request that Brann’s tarp the load.
Upon arrival, Rush and MWP’s foreman discovered that the
saw’s
ten
ribbon
cables
and
connectors
had
been
damaged.
Nonetheless, Rush accepted the shipment, and directed MWP to
unload and install the saw, which was not operational without
new connectors.
MWP offered to locate new connectors.
During
January 2007, Rush contacted MWP at least twice to inform the
company
that
he
needed
MWP
to
make
the
saw
operational
immediately to avoid losing orders that required use of the saw.
According to MWP, because there were only a limited number of
these saws manufactured overseas over a decade prior, it was
difficult, yet important, to obtain the right replacement parts.
Vicki Rush, Rush’s wife, caused further delay when she provided
MWP with the wrong serial number for the damaged parts.
On February 28, 2007, MWP sent Rush Industries a statement
for the remaining $4,000 balance due for shipment.
2007,
Rush
Industries
Carolina state court.
filed
a
lawsuit
against
On April 9,
MWP
in
North
Unaware of the suit, Anthony Wilson, an
employee for MWP, contacted Rush to arrange a time to install
3
Appeal: 13-1019
Doc: 28
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 4 of 13
proper connectors which he was finally able to locate.
Rush
explained that he had filed a lawsuit against MWP “for a million
dollars” and refused to speak with Wilson or accept the cables
and connectors he had obtained.
In January 2008, Rush’s wife purchased replacement ribbon
cables and connectors off the internet for $103.60, plus $14.63
for
shipping.
connectors.
remained
Rush’s
employees
installed
the
cables
and
While the control panel for the saw lit up, the saw
dysfunctional.
Rush
testified
that
he
subsequently
engaged several electricians and service companies in an attempt
to diagnose and fix the problem.
saw operational.
However, none could make the
Rush testified that the saw has no value in
its current dysfunctional state because the cost to haul the
metal exceeds the scrap value of the saw.
Also
in
January
2008,
Brann’s as a defendant.
Rush
Industries
added
Appellee
This constituted Brann’s first notice
that the saw it had transported was not operational and that
Rush Industries had filed a lawsuit.
The complaint against MWP
and Brann’s alleged breach of contract, negligence, and bailment
claims.
damaged
Rush
Industries
equipment,
lost
consequential damages.
sought
income
recovery
and
for
profits,
value
and
of
the
additional
MWP filed a counterclaim against Rush
4
Appeal: 13-1019
Doc: 28
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 5 of 13
Industries for unpaid invoices. 1
The Defendants removed the case
to federal court in November 2008 on the basis that it fell
under the purview of the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate
Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706.
On Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the district
court
dismissed
Rush
Industries’
state-law
claims
for
lost
profits and its negligence claims insofar as they did not arise
from bailment.
It deferred judgment on the application of the
Carmack Amendment.
The parties tried the remaining issues in a
bench trial in October 2012.
The district court found that the
Carmack Amendment preempted all state-law claims arising out of
damage occurring during transportation of the saw.
characterizing
state-law
claims
as
federal-law
After reclaims,
the
district court awarded damages to Rush Industries in the amount
of $118.23 for the cost of replacement ribbons and connectors,
and to MWP for $6,388.59 for unpaid invoices.
The district
court dismissed all claims against Brann’s.
Rush Industries’ filed a timely appeal of which we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
1
Brann’s
and
MWP
also
filed
cross-claims
for
indemnification against any damages the court awarded.
These
cross-claims are not at issue here.
5
Appeal: 13-1019
Doc: 28
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 6 of 13
II.
We review a district court’s judgments at a bench trial
under a mixed standard:
factual findings for clear error and
conclusions of law de novo.
Helton v. AT & T, Inc., 709 F.3d
343, 350 (4th Cir. 2013).
A.
Rush Industries first argues that the district court erred
when it determined that its claims against MWP are covered by
the Carmack Amendment.
Specifically, Rush Industries contends
that the services provided by MWP fall outside the parameters of
the Carmack Amendment because Brann’s, not MWP, provided actual
transport of the saw, and because MWP’s services did not involve
transport.
The
Carmack
Amendment
is
a
“comprehensive
exercise
of
Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce” that creates
“a national scheme of carrier liability for goods damaged or
lost during interstate shipment under a valid bill of lading.”
5K Logistics, Inc. v. Daily Exp., Inc., 659 F.3d 331, 335 (4th
Cir.
2011)
(internal
quotations
and
citations
omitted).
It
preempts all state or common law claims available to a shipper
against a carrier for loss or damage associated with interstate
shipments.
Shao v. Link Cargo (Taiwan) Ltd., 986 F.2d 700, 704-
05 (4th Cir. 1993).
6
Appeal: 13-1019
Doc: 28
Filed: 08/28/2013
Contrary
Amendment
include
to
goes
Rush
beyond
associated
Further,
it
Pg: 7 of 13
Industries’
the
physical
services.
applies
to
a
argument,
act
See
company,
49
such
of
the
transportation
U.S.C.
as
Carmack
§
MWP,
to
13102(23).
that
is
in
contract with a shipper to handle the movement of property and
subcontracts the actual physical shipping of the property in
question.
See,
e.g.,
Land
O’Lakes,
Inc.
v.
Superior
Serv.
Transp. of Wis., Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1155 (E.D. Wis.
2007)
(“Liability
under
the
Carmack
Amendment
. . .
extends
beyond the carrier who actually provides the transportation.”);
Mach Mold, Inc. v. Clover Assocs., Inc., 383 F. Supp. 2d 1015,
1029 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (explaining that the Carmack Amendment
applies to a company that coordinates transportation, but does
not actually transport the property in question).
Brann’s
may
have
owned
and
controlled
the
Even though
trucks
that
transported the saw, MWP’s overall coordination of the shipping
places it within the confines of the Carmack Amendment. 2
such,
we
agree
with
the
district
court
that
the
As
Carmack
Amendment applies and preempts all tort and common law claims
against MWP.
See Shao, 986 F.2d at 704-05.
2
While MWP’s repair work and installation of the saw
arguably falls outside the parameters of the Carmack Amendment,
Rush Industries puts forward no evidence establishing that
damage to the saw occurred during repair or installation.
7
Appeal: 13-1019
Doc: 28
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 8 of 13
B.
Rush Industries next argues that the district court erred
when it granted partial summary judgment dismissing its claims
for lost profits and negligence not arising out of the bailment.
Given that the Carmack Amendment preempts Rush Industries’ state
and common law claims, we do not directly address this argument.
Instead, we review the district court’s treatment of the claims
as re-characterized federal claims under the Carmack Amendment. 3
See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 66-67 (1987)
(explaining that a lawsuit that purports to raise only state law
claims
may
complete
be
construed
preemption
as
exists);
raising
federal
Darcangelo
v.
law
claims
Verizon
where
Commc’ns,
Inc., 292 F.3d 181, 195 (4th Cir. 2002) (construing state claims
as federal claims where ERISA preempted state claims).
The
Carmack
Amendment
establishes
that
a
carrier
is
“liab[le] . . . for the actual loss or injury to the property”
that occurs during shipping.
49 U.S.C. § 14706.
This includes
“all damages resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier’s
3
To recover under the Carmack Amendment, a plaintiff must
make out a prima facie case establishing:
(1) delivery to the
carrier in good condition; (2) arrival in damaged condition,
and; (3) amount of damages.
Oak Hall Cap & Gown Co., Inc. v.
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 899 F.2d 291, 294 (4th Cir.
1990). The district court correctly found that Rush Industries
had established the first two prongs of the prima facie case.
Thus, we discuss only the third prong related to damages.
8
Appeal: 13-1019
duty
Doc: 28
with
Filed: 08/28/2013
respect
to
agreed destination.”
299
U.S.
recover
28,
all
29
any
Pg: 9 of 13
part
of
the
transportation
to
the
Se. Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co.,
(1936).
reasonably
As
such,
foreseeable
a
plaintiff
shipper
can
consequential
damages
and
lost profits that are not speculative.
Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co.
ex rel. Tabacalera Contreras Cigar Co. v. Yellow Freight Sys.,
Inc., 325 F.3d 924, 931 (7th Cir. 2003).
Rush Industries argues that the saw sustained irreparable
damage because MWP “withheld replacement parts for some eight
months”
after
it
installed
Appellant’s Br. 19.
the
saw
at
the
Americus
plant.
Because no individual or company can now
fix the broken saw, Rush Industries urges that we find that it
is
entitled
Further,
Rush
to
the
value
Industries
of
a
claims
comparable
that
it
is
brand
new
entitled
saw.
to
lost
profits from contracts it could not fulfill because the saw was
not made operable.
Rush
Industries
failed
to
present
evidence
establishing
that any undue delay in replacing the ribbons and connectors
caused the saw’s permanently irreparable condition.
At trial,
Rush Industries presented only a single witness, Mr. Rush, who
had
extremely
limited
technical
knowledge
of
the
saw.
In
essence, Mr. Rush could say little more than that the saw was
working when he saw it in South Boston and did not work after it
arrived in Americus.
MWP, on the other hand, presented several
9
Appeal: 13-1019
Doc: 28
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 10 of 13
witnesses with relevant specialized knowledge who explained that
the
saw,
and
particularly
the
saw’s
computer
obsolete and past expected functioning life.
system,
were
Further, an MWP
witness who serviced this particular saw when D-Scan owned it
testified that it was uncertain whether the saw would survive
transportation from South Boston to Americus because “there are
a lot of variables that happen during shipment,” and that the
vibrations during transport could cause problems with the saw’s
circuit board.
Even if Rush could have established that the inoperable
condition of the saw was caused by MWP’s lag in replacing the
cables
and
connectors,
Rush
Industries’
result in an exorbitant windfall.
damages
claim
would
Rush Industries purchased an
outdated piece of machinery manufactured overseas in a small
batch “AS IS, WHERE IS, WITH ALL FAULTS” for $14,300.
replacement saw costs over a quarter-million dollars.
A new
Surely,
MWP could not foresee that its failure to repair damage which
occurred during shipping would require that it purchase a brand
new saw.
Nor should MWP be held liable for Rush Industries’ alleged
lost
profits
in
the
aftermath
of
the
January
2007
delivery.
Rush Industries presented no evidence that the saw would have
worked had MWP immediately replaced the cables and connectors.
In other words, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude
10
Appeal: 13-1019
Doc: 28
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 11 of 13
that the problems with the saw upon arrival in Americus were
limited to the cables and connectors.
There is also no viable evidence in the record that Rush
Industries informed MWP that it had a “million-dollar contract,”
or any other contract for that matter, hinging on the timely
delivery and operability of the saw.
to
guarantee
the
operability
of
In fact, MWP did nothing
the
saw
after
transport.
Moreover, given the age, foreign origin, and limited number of
these saws, it would have been difficult for MWP to obtain the
appropriate
replacement
correct information.
parts
had
Rush
Industries
provided
However, Vicki Rush provided the wrong
serial number to MWP, further delaying MWP’s efforts to repair
the saw.
When MWP’s representative finally contacted Rush to
notify him that he had found the correct parts and to arrange
for installation, Rush shunned his efforts.
The only damages that Rush Industries has established as
attributable to MWP are for replacement cables and connectors.
As such, we find that the district court correctly found that
MWP’s liability is limited accordingly. 4
4
Rush Industries’ failure to establish damages beyond the
replacement cost of the cables and connectors applies also to
its claims against Brann’s.
Additionally, we agree with the
district court that MWP and Rush Industries’ claims against
Brann’s are time barred because neither informed Brann’s of any
claims or problems with the panel saw until January 25, 2008,
well after the applicable nine-month notice requirement expired.
(Continued)
11
Appeal: 13-1019
Doc: 28
Filed: 08/28/2013
Pg: 12 of 13
III.
Rush Industries next argues that the district court erred
when it refused to excuse its obligation to pay MWP for services
rendered. 5
MWP satisfied its contractual obligations pursuant to
its agreement with Rush Industries.
MWP conducted repair work
on the saw in South Boston per Rush Industries’ request.
shipment,
MWP
employees
complied
with
Rush’s
After
instructions
to
unload and assemble the saw in Americus in spite of the damaged
state of the cables and connectors.
We find no error in the
district court’s determination that Rush Industries must pay its
past due bills to MWP.
IV.
Rush Industries took a risk in purchasing an outdated, used
saw at a huge discount and then shipping it some 600 miles.
Unfortunately for Rush Industries, the risk did not pay off.
However, there is no legal basis for pushing the repercussions
onto the company it enlisted to help with shipment.
We find no
See 49 C.F.R. pt. 1035, App. B (“As a condition precedent to
recovery, claims must be filed in writing with the . . .
delivering carrier . . . within nine months after delivery has
elapsed.”).
5
MWP counterclaims for $2,388.59 for pre-shipment repairs
it made to the saw in South Boston and $4,000 for unloading the
saw and assembling it in Americus.
12
Appeal: 13-1019
error
Doc: 28
in
the
Filed: 08/28/2013
district
court’s
Pg: 13 of 13
handling
of
this
case
and
therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?