Aluminum Prod. Dist., Inc. v. Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc., Civ-74-749-C.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ-74-749-C.,Civ-74-749-C. |
| Citation | 404 F. Supp. 1374 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
| Parties | ALUMINUM PRODUCT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. AAACON AUTO TRANSPORT, INC., a corporation, Defendant. |
Ronald R. Hudson, Rhodes, Hieronymus, Holloway & Wilson, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff.
Paul J. Kessler, Kessler, Craig & Morgan, Edmond, Okl., Ralph J. Zola, Zola & Zola, New York City, for defendant.
The above entitled cause came on for trial pursuant to regular assignment this 23rd day of April, 1975. Plaintiff appeared by counsel, Ronald R. Hudson, and defendant appeared by counsel, Paul J. Kessler and Ralph Zola. The parties announced ready, a jury having previously been waived, and the Court proceeded to receive evidence and hear the testimony of witnesses sworn and examined in open Court.
The Court finds the facts to be that —
1. The defendant, AAACon Auto Transport, Inc., is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce under the laws of the United States regulating interstate commerce, Title 49, United States Code.
2. The Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Title 49, United States Code, and Title 28, United States Code § 1337.
3. Defendant contracted with the plaintiff to transport a certain 1973 Lincoln Continental automobile from New Jersey to California.
4. Defendant hired a casual driver for the purpose of the interstate transportation, and took possession of the vehicle pursuant to the contract.
5. At all times material defendant was a carrier or bailee for hire as to plaintiff's vehicle.
6. Defendant's driver was negligent in the operation of the vehicle.
7. While the automobile was in the exclusive possession and control of defendant it was damaged and destroyed on December 17, 1973, in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
8. Defendant's tariff in force at the time of the contract between the parties, and filed with the ICC, contained no provision for arbitration of claims or disputes between the parties.
9. Plaintiff had collision insurance coverage with the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York who became subrogated to the rights and interests of plaintiff for damage and loss to the vehicle by reason of payment upon proof of loss.
10. As a result of the damage and destruction of the car in possession of defendant, the vehicle was unrepairable but had a fair market value of $8,225.00 when taken possession of by defendant. After deducting net salvage recovery, plaintiff and its subrogated insurance carrier sustained total damage in the sum of $7,648.25.
11. Defendant has paid to plaintiff the sum of $100.00 representing the deductible portion of the policy of insurance but said sum was not accepted by plaintiff in full settlement of its claim for damages as claimed by defendant.
12. Plaintiff and its subrogated insurance carrier, the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, are entitled to judgment against the defendant in the sum of $7,548.25 together with the costs of this action.
The Court concludes as a matter of law that —
1. Plaintiff is not required to arbitrate this dispute in New York State. The arbitration provisions of defendant's contracts and bill of lading are invalid, void, and unenforceable. There is no evidence before the Court that the arbitration provision relied upon by the defendant has ever been submitted to or approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission. In any event, the Uniform Bill of Lading which is a part of the tariff offered in evidence by defendant makes no reference to arbitration as a manner of settling claims resulting from the transportation of automobiles by defendant as an interstate carrier. Compulsory arbitration in the City of New York would unreasonably burden claimants such as the plaintiff here and is contrary to the obligations of a common carrier under applicable federal law. To allow defendant by contract to restrict the venue of claimants throughout the United States to arbitration in New York City would deprive them of the right to pursue their claims against carriers in a jurisdiction in which the carrier was doing business or conducting activities and would be an unreasonable impediment to the determination of carrier liability.
2. Defendant's Bill of Lading Agreement is grossly unfair to plaintiff on its face. The Court notes that the Bill of Lading Agreement is different from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Intergovernmental Risk Management On Behalf of Village of Bartlett v. O'Donnell, Wicklund, Pigozzi & Peterson Architects, Inc., 1-96-3159
...the insurance policy expressly prohibited waiver of the insurer's subrogation rights. In Aluminum Product Distributors, Inc. v. AAACon Auto Transport, Inc., 404 F.Supp. 1374 (W.D.Okla.1975), aff'd, 549 F.2d 1381 (10th Cir.1977), the automobile insurance policy provided that coverage would n......
-
Continental Ins. Co. v. Boraie
...Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Amerada Hess Corp., 275 N.W.2d 304, 308 (N.D.1979); Aluminum Product Distributors, Inc. v. AAACon Auto Transport, Inc., 404 F.Supp. 1374, 1377 (W.D.Okla.1975); Continental Insurance Company. v. Washeon Corp., 524 F.Supp. 34, 36 (E.D.Mo.1981); Alamo Chemi......
-
Anton v. Greyhound Van Lines, Inc.
... ... value' of a shipment." Strickland Transp. Co. v. United States, 334 F.2d 172, 175 (5th ... See, e. g., Aluminum ... Product Distributors, Inc. v. Aaacon Auto ... ...
-
Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...the decision of Judge Costantino from which this appeal was taken. District Judge Chandler in Aluminum Products Distributors, Inc. v. Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc., 404 F.Supp. 1374 (W.D.Okl.1975), has on the other hand held the Aaacon arbitration clause invalid and unenforceable, not approve......