665 Fed.Appx. 182 (3rd Cir. 2016), 15-4021, Choi v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc.

• Citation: 665 Fed.Appx. 182
• Opinion Judge: MCKEE, Circuit Judge.
• Party Name: YOHAN CHOI, Appellant v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC
• Attorney: For YOHAN CHOI, Plaintiff - Appellant: Brian P.R. Eisenhower, Esq., New York, NY. For ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM INC, Defendant - Appellee: Barry N. Gutterman, Esq., Barry Gutterman & Associates, Bedford Hills, NY; Kenneth A. Olsen, Esq., Lebanon, NJ.
• Judge Panel: Before: McKEE, Chief Judge,[*] RENDELL and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
• Case Date: December 13, 2016
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Page 182

665 Fed.Appx. 182 (3rd Cir. 2016)

YOHAN CHOI, Appellant

v.

ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC

No. 15-4021

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

December 13, 2016

Submitted September 19, 2016, Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Editorial Note:

This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. (District Court No. 3-14-cv-07458). District Judge: Hon. Anne Thompson.

For YOHAN CHOI, Plaintiff - Appellant: Brian P.R. Eisenhower, Esq., New York, NY.

For ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM INC, Defendant - Appellee: Barry N. Gutterman, Esq., Barry Gutterman & Associates, Bedford Hills, NY; Kenneth A. Olsen, Esq., Lebanon, NJ.

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge,^[*] RENDELL and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION ⁺

MCKEE, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Yohan Choi appeals the District Court of New Jersey's denial of Choi's

Page 183

Motion for Reconsideration and the District Court's partial grant of Defendant ABF Freight System, Inc.'s (" ABF" ) Motion for Summary Judgment.

Choi filed a one-count complaint in the District Court against ABF asserting breach of contract under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act.¹ He sought damages in the amount of $61,088.29 after a fire destroyed the ABF " ReloCube" containing Choi's property while in transit.

The parties agree that the Carmack Amendment applies to this case, but they dispute whether ABF's liability was limited. The District Court limited ABF's liability to $7,500, per the bill of lading's language.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.²

I.

Because we write for parties familiar with this case's factual and procedural history, we provide only the background necessary to our conclusions.

The general rule under the Carmack Amendment " is that an interstate carrier is strictly liable for damages up to 'the actual loss or injury to the property caused by (A) the receiving carrier, (B) the delivering carrier, or (C) [certain intermediary carriers].'" ^[3] The carrier's liability may be limited, however, if it satisfies the following four requirements: (1) maintain a tariff within the prescribed guidelines of the Interstate Commerce Commission; (2) obtain the shipper's agreement as to [the shipper's] choice of liability; (3) give the shipper a reasonable opportunity to choose between two or more levels of liability; and (4) issue a receipt or bill of lading prior to moving the shipment.^[4]

The parties primarily dispute the third requirement: whether Choi was afforded a reasonable opportunity to choose between two or more levels of liability.⁵ ABF offered coverage for negligence and coverage for catastrophic events. The bill of lading expressly included a $7,500 maximum liability per ReloCube in the event of " trailer fire, vehicle collision, vehicle overturn or complete container theft." ⁶ Choi never sought additional coverage for catastrophic damage.

As he did in the District Court, Choi argues that the additional negligence coverage offered was insufficient to satisfy the Carmack Amendment's two-or-more-levels requirement and that ABF was required to provide two or more levels of liability coverage with respect to catastrophic damage.

II.

This Court has not addressed the specific issue of whether the Carmack

Page 184

Amendment requires two or more liability options per subset of damage. We have, however, broadly stated the Amendment's two-or-more-levels requirement. In Emerson Elec. Supply Co. v. Estes Express Lines Corp., we held that " [t]o satisfy the two or more levels of liability requirement, a carrier must offer two or more shipping rates with corresponding...