Global Van Lines, Inc. v. United States, No. 259-65

• Court: Court of Federal Claims
• Writing for the Court: Davis
• Citation: 456 F.2d 717,197 Ct. Cl. 575
• Decision Date: 17 March 1972
• Docket Number: 355-65.,No. 259-65
• Parties: GLOBAL VAN LINES, INC. v. The UNITED STATES.

197 Ct. Cl. 575, 456 F.2d 717 (1972)

GLOBAL VAN LINES, INC.
v.
The UNITED STATES.

Nos. 259-65, 355-65.

United States Court of Claims.

March 17, 1972.

456 F.2d 718

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

456 F.2d 719

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

456 F.2d 720

Alan F. Wohlstetter, Washington, D. C., atty. of record, for plaintiff; Ernest H. Land, Washington, D. C., of counsel

John Charles Ranney, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen., L. Patrick Gray, III, for defendant.

Before COWEN, Chief Judge, LARAMORE and DURFEE, Senior Judges, and DAVIS, COLLINS, SKELTON and NICHOLS, Judges.

456 F.2d 721

OPINION

DURFEE, Senior Judge.^*

These cases, which were tried jointly, arose out of the transportation by plaintiff, under Government bills of lading issued by the Department of Defense, of household goods belonging to military personnel. The shipments moved between points in the United States and points overseas.

Beginning in 1965, several hundred cases, involving many thousands of claims based on separate shipments, have been filed in this court by carriers of military household goods. Some of the litigating carriers are members of the Household Goods Forwarders Association of America, Inc. and others are members of the Household Goods Carriers' Bureau. After extensive negotiations, representatives of the carriers and representatives of the Government selected one case as presenting all of the issues that are involved in all of the cases filed by members of the Household Goods Forwarders Association of America, Inc.; and they selected two cases as together presenting all of the issues that are involved in all of the cases filed by members of the Household Goods Carriers' Bureau. It was agreed by the parties, with the approval of the commissioner, that only the test cases thus selected would be tried; that the court's decisions on the issues of liability in such cases would constitute the bases for the disposition of all the pending cases.

The test case selected for members of the Household Goods Forwarders Association of America Inc. was Trans Ocean Van Service v. United States, No. 137-66 ("TOVS"). That case was decided by this court on May 15, 1970 (426 F.2d 329, 192 Ct.Cl. 75).

The two cases now under consideration, Nos. 259-65 and 355-65, both filed by Global Van Lines Inc. ("plaintiff"), were the test cases selected for members of the Household Goods Carriers' Bureau ("the Bureau"). It was agreed by the parties, with the approval of the commissioner, that a joint trial would be held in cases Nos. 259-65 and 355-65, and that the trial would be limited to the issues bearing on plaintiff's right to recover on its claims, or bearing on defendant's right to recover on its counterclaims, with the amount of any such recovery being reserved for determination in subsequent proceedings under Rule 131(c).

Plaintiff is a Texas Corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Anaheim, California. At all times material to this litigation, plaintiff held itself out to the Department of Defense as ready, willing and able to transport the household goods of military personnel for compensation between points in the United States and points overseas. The principal types of service offered by plaintiff were (1) door-to-door-container service, (2) door-to-door-container-Government (MSTS) service, otherwise known as Mode 5, and (3) motor-vansea-van service.

Door-to-door container service involves the pre-packing and loading of each shipment into specially designed carrier-owned containers at the origin residence, transporting the loaded containers to the port of debarkation, arranging for the movement overseas by ship or by air, transporting the loaded containers from the point of debarkation to the destination residence, and unloading the household goods from the containers and placing them into the owner's new residence.

Door-to-door-container-Government (MSTS) service, or Mode 5, is identical with the door-to-door-container service except that ocean transportation between military ocean terminals is provided by ships owned by, or under charter to, defendant's Military Sea Transportation Service ("MSTS").

In the motor-van-sea-van service, uncrated household goods are placed into a moving van at the origin residence and

456 F.2d 722

are transported in the van to the port of embarkation, where the household goods are placed in sea-van containers, and loaded on a ship. At the port of debarkation, the household goods are removed from the sea-van containers, and the uncrated shipment is then placed in a moving van and transported in the van to the owner's new residence at the destination point

The shipments transported in the door-to-door container service and in Mode 5 move under indivisible single-factor rates applicable from origin to destination. Some of the shipments transported in the motor-van-sea-van service also move under single-factor rates, while other shipments in this mode move under multiple-factor rates, i.e., separate rates for different segments of the land and water transportation performed by the carrier.¹

The issues presented in cases Nos. 259-65 and 355-65 by the pleadings, the pretrial proceedings, and the evidence at the trial will be dealt with in the succeeding parts of this opinion.

I. Alleged Diversion to New Point Without SIT (Storage-in-Transit)

One issue involved in the present litigation is whether there was a "diversion" of a shipment, entitling plaintiff to compensation in addition to the line-haul transportation charge when the shipment was consigned to the property owner at a specified military base at a specified city, and plaintiff was later advised by defendant, upon the arrival of the shipment at the designated base and city, and before any storage-in-transit ("SIT") was accomplished, that the owner's new residence was located off the base, and that the shipment should be delivered to the owner at the off-base address. Shipments 3920 and 6940 were selected by the parties as illustrating this issue.

Shipment 3920 involved a situation where plaintiff was ordered by defendant to effect delivery to the property owner at a residential address located in the same city as the military base to which the shipment was consigned. A similar situation was considered by the court in TOVS, 426 F.2d at 342-344, 192 Ct.Cl. at 101-104; and the court held that no diversion of the shipment was involved because of change from original delivery instructions. After the court's decision in TOVS was announced, plaintiff in the present litigation informed the commissioner that it was withdrawing its diversion claim based on shipment 3920.

However, TOVS did not present for consideration any claim involving a delivery to the property owner at a residential address in a city different than the city containing the military base to which the shipment was consigned. Shipment 6940 in the present litigation involves such a claim.

Shipment 6940 originated in Japan and was consigned to the property owner at Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama. Storage-in-transit was authorized, and plaintiff was instructed in the Government bill of lading to notify the transportation officer at Maxwell Air Force Base upon the arrival of the shipment and prior to placing it in SIT. Upon the arrival of the shipment at the designated City of Montgomery, Alabama, plaintiff notified the transportation officer at Maxwell Air Force Base, and was instructed to deliver the shipment to the property owner's new residence, 709 Stonewall Drive, Prattville, Alabama, which plaintiff did. The distance between Montgomery and Prattville is approximately ten miles.

Plaintiff has already been paid for the transportation of shipment 6940 from Japan to Montgomery, Alabama. In the present litigation, plaintiff is suing for an additional amount of $40.73, based upon the alleged diversion of shipment 6940 from Maxwell Air Force Base,

456 F.2d 723

Montgomery, Alabama to Prattville, Alabama

As stated in Bureau tariffs and regulations, specified in our findings of fact, the term "diversion" means, for the purposes of the present litigation: (1) a change in the name of the consignor; (2) a change in the name of the consignee; (3) a change in the destination; (4) a change in the route, when requested by the consignor, consignee, or owner of the shipment; or (5) other instructions to the carrier that require a change in billing or an additional movement of the car or truck, or both.²

It was part of plaintiff's responsibility, in return for the transportation charge paid by defendant, to pack and "containerize" the household goods at the origin residence, to transport the containers to the destination residence, and to remove the household goods from the containers and place them in the destination residence. At the time when the property owner was transferred from Japan to Maxwell Air Force Base, and his household goods were tendered to and accepted by plaintiff for transportation, it was not known by the property owner, by defendant, or by plaintiff just where the property owner would be residing after he began his new duty assignment at Maxwell Air Force Base at Montgomery, Alabama. The property owner might be assigned Government-owned quarters on the base, or it might be necessary for him to obtain housing elsewhere. Consequently, plaintiff was instructed in the Government bill of lading to notify the transportation officer at Maxwell Air Force Base upon the arrival of the shipment at Montgomery, so that the transportation officer could give plaintiff specific delivery instructions (or else direct plaintiff to place the shipment temporarily in SIT until delivery instructions could be issued).

When the instructions of defendant's transportation officer were given to plaintiff, changing the specified place of delivery, the shipment had arrived in Montgomery before it had been released from the custody of the carrier. If the...