Alleghany Corporation v. Romco, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 73-666. |
| Citation | 392 F. Supp. 38 |
| Parties | ALLEGHANY CORPORATION, t/d/b/a Jones Motor, Plaintiff, v. ROMCO, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Michael J. Boyle, P. Christian Hague, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Arthur J. Diskin, Pittsburgh, Pa., Dennis J. Slyman, Greensburg, Pa., for defendant.
Plaintiff, Alleghany Corporation, is a motor carrier engaged in the interstate transportation of freight. It operates under rights granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission and in accordance with tariffs filed with that regulatory agency. Defendant is a shipper in interstate commerce. For a period of time plaintiff acted as a carrier for defendant in shipping goods from Massachusetts to Pennsylvania. The charges for this transportation were billed to and paid for by defendant at amounts less than those required by the ICC tariff. Plaintiff now sues for the deficiency created by the undercharges. Jurisdiction is claimed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and is not disputed. Plaintiff's cause of action is pleaded under Sec. 217(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 317(b) which provides that "no common carrier by motor vehicle shall charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation . . . than the rates, fares and charges specified in its tariff."
Defendant's Answer is a general denial of all material allegations except jurisdiction. Pretrial preparation moved to the filing of pretrial narrative statements and a pretrial conference, at which point a controlling issue of law became apparent.
Plaintiff Alleghany Corporation has moved for summary judgment in its favor as to liability and has supported its motion with a sworn affidavit of one of its officers verifying the information as to the numbers and amounts of nearly all of the transactions between plaintiff and defendant Romco which allegedly involved undercharges.
The law is clear that if plaintiff made shipments for defendant and charged the defendant amounts lower than the tariffs required by the schedules filed with the ICC, the defendant is absolutely liable for the amount of these undercharges. 49 U.S.C. § 317 (b) provides in part as follows:
No common carrier by motor vehicle shall charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for transportation or for any service in connection therewith between the points enumerated in such tariff than the rates, fares, and charges specified in the tariffs in effect at the time . . ..
The case law under this section supports the position of plaintiff Alleghany that no legal or equitable defenses are available to a shipper who had been undercharged. See: Locust Cartage Co. v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc., 430 F.2d 334 1st Cir. 1970; Bowser & Campbell v. Knox Glass, Inc., 390 F.2d 193 3rd Cir. 1968, cert. denied 392 U.S. 907, 88 S.Ct. 2061, 20 L.Ed.2d 1365 1968. The reason for this rule is to ensure that accurate and reliable documents are filed. In re Penn Central Transportation Co., 477 F.2d 841 3rd Cir. 1973, cert. denied 414 U.S. 923, 94 S.Ct. 219, 38 L.Ed.2d 157.
To counter plaintiff's motion and supporting evidentiary material, the defendant has filed a memorandum of law, but no accompanying evidentiary material. The defendant argues that the following issues of material fact, as set forth in the similarly numbered portions of the defendant's memorandum of law, remain to be resolved at trial.
(1) Paragraph 7 of plaintiff's complaint contains a reference to the filing of the relevant tariff with the "Federal Register" as well as with the Interstate Commerce Commission. Defendant apparently disputes that the tariff was ever "filed" with the Federal Register. The difficulty arises from the awkward phraseology employed by the plaintiff. The statute provides that the ICC may prescribe the method of publication, filing, and posting of tariffs and the ICC was empowered to require that tariffs in fact be published with the Federal Register, 49 U.S.C. § 317(a). Defendant does not deny that the tariff schedule was properly filed or published so that this averment, even if contested, is irrelevant to any material issue in this case.
(2) Paragraph 8 of the complaint refers to the false and erroneous bills of lading which had been prepared by plaintiff's agent, as having been prepared by him with the help of one of defendant's agents. Defendant denies that any of its agents were involved in this "conspiracy" and demands proof thereof. According to the statute and case law discussed above, it does not matter who was responsible for the undercharges if there were undercharges. The full amount due for the shipments made according to the tariff filed must be paid. Therefore, even if this fact is disputed, it is immaterial.
(3) Defendant disputes the amount of the undercharges. Plaintiff has amended the amount of its claim and admits that it cannot determine the exact amount of undercharges for those items listed on Exhibit A to its pretrial statement. However, documentation is available for the $22,647.80 claimed in that statement and the affidavit of Robert Hollenbach states that the Exhibit is a true and correct summary of the amounts charged and the amounts which should have been charged according to plaintiff's tariff. As to this amount, summary judgment can properly be rendered, especially because the defendant did not contest it at the pretrial conference.
(4) This part of the defendant's memorandum repeats the assertion that the denial of liability in the answer is sufficient to preclude summary judgment against the defendant. Defendant relies solely on its assertion that it is not liable for the amount of the undercharges, for which plaintiff had billed it upon discovery of the undercharges. (See Paragraph 10 of the complaint). This is not the law of Rule 56 (e).
The defendant argues that the cases cited by plaintiff in support of liability are not on point because they were not decided on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AT&T v. New York City Human Resources Admin.
...reliance, or other equitable defense"), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 964, 91 S.Ct. 365, 27 L.Ed.2d 383 (1970); Alleghany Corp. v. Romco, Inc., 392 F.Supp. 38, 40 (W.D.Pa. 1975) ("no defenses such as estoppel by conduct of the carrier, reliance by the shipper, innocence of the shipper; hardship on......
-
Fry Trucking Co. v. Shenandoah Quarry, Inc.
...it is now well settled that 'no legal or equitable defenses are available to a shipper who has been undercharged.' Alleghany Corp. v. Romco, Inc. (392 F.Supp. 38 (D.C.)) at 39; Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Central Iron and Coal Company, 65 (265) U.S. 59 (, 44 S.Ct. 441, 68 L......
-
Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. Thoreson Food Products, Inc., 630
...Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Central Iron & Coal Co. (1924), 265 U.S. 59, 44 S.Ct. 441, 68 L.Ed. 900; Alleghany Corporation v. Romco, Inc. (D.C.Pa.1975), 392 F.Supp. 38.5 Southern Pacific Co. v. Miller Abattoir Co. (C.A.3d Cir. 1972), 454 F.2d 357; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. ......
-
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Standard Milling Co.
...regardless of contrary agreement, misquotation by the carrier, reliance, or other equitable defense"); Alleghany Corporation v. Romco, Inc., 392 F.Supp. 38, 40 (W.D.Pa.1975) ("no defenses such as estoppel by conduct of the carrier, reliance by the shipper, innocence of the shipper, hardship......