Heller, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Decision Date | 08 June 2000 |
Citation | 754 A.2d 689 |
Parties | TODD HELLER, INC., Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Appellee. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Howard B. Miller, St. Davids, for appellant.
Gordon A. Einhorn, Harrisburg, for appellee.
Before CAVANAUGH and EAKIN, JJ., and CERCONE, President Judge Emeritus. CERCONE, President Judge Emeritus:
¶ 1 Appellant, Todd Heller Incorporated, challenges the Trial Court's order entering summary judgment in favor of Appellee, United Parcel Service. After review, we affirm.
¶ 2 The learned Trial Judge, The Honorable William F. Moran Jr. of Northampton County, has very ably summarized the facts giving rise to this appeal as follows:
Trial Court Opinion, filed 9/30/99 at 2-3.
¶ 3 As a result of losing the bid, Appellant commenced the present action against UPS for negligently failing to deliver the package containing the glass beads in a timely manner. Appellant sought $395,581.54 in pecuniary damages, which is the value of the profits that it contends it would have earned if it had been awarded the contract by the Indiana Department of Transportation. Both parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Thereafter the Trial Court granted UPS's motion for summary judgment and entered an order limiting Appellant's recovery to $100.00, the amount provided for in the shipping invoice when no greater value had been declared by the shipper. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal of this order.
¶ 4 Appellant presents one issue to our Court for our review:
Is a disclaimer of liability for consequential damages in a shipping contract enforceable as a matter of law even though it is deliberately obscure and does not put the shipper on reasonable notice that there is a limitation of liability for consequential damages?
Borough of Mifflinburg v. Heim, 705 A.2d 456, 465 (Pa.Super.1997), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, ___ A.2d. ___, 1999 WL 147921 (1999); Kingston Coal Co. v. Felton Mining Co., 456 Pa.Super. 270, 690 A.2d 284, 287 (1997), appeal denied, 549 Pa. 702, 700 A.2d 441 (1997).
¶ 7 As the parties to this appeal and the Trial Court all agree, the liability of an interstate common carrier such as United Parcel Service for the loss, damage or delay of goods in transit is determined by Federal common law. First Pennsylvania Bank v. Eastern Airlines Inc., 731 F.2d 1113, 1115 (3d Cir.1984); Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Great Western Airlines, Inc., 767 F.2d 425, 427 (8th Cir.1985); McCall-Thomas Engineering Co. v. Federal Express Corp., 81 F.3d 28, 30 (4th Cir.1996); Uniden v. Federal Express Corp., 642 F.Supp. 263, 265 (M.D.Pa.1986); Commodities Recovery Corp. v. Emery Worldwide, 756 F.Supp. 210, 212 (D.C.N.J.1991); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Federal Express Corp., 145 Misc.2d 801, 548 N.Y.S.2d 422, 424 (1989); Burlington Air Express Inc. v. Georgia Pacific Corporation, 211 Ga.App. 113, 438 S.E.2d 97, 98 (1993); Butler Intern., Inc. v. Central Air Freight, Inc., 102 N.C.App. 401, 402 S.E.2d 441, 445 (1991).
¶ 8 Federal common law has long recognized that a shipper and carrier may contractually agree to a specific value for the property the shipper wishes the carrier to deliver. Once there is an agreed upon value of the shipped property this in turn determines the shipping rate, since the shipping cost is contingent on the condition that the carrier's liability for loss, damage, or delay will be limited to the extent of the shipped property's agreed upon valuation. This is known as the "released value doctrine." This doctrine enables the carrier to limit its liability for actual damages resulting from its negligence. Husman v. Purolator Courier, 832 F.2d 459, 461 (8th Cir.1987).
In order for a [carrier's] limitation of liability to be valid under the "released value doctrine," the carrier must present the shipper with a reasonable opportunity to declare a value for the shipment above the maximum value set by the carrier, pay an additional fee, and thereby be insured at a higher rate should the shipment go awry. It is not necessary that an employee of the carrier explain the option to declare a higher value to the shipper. Rather, the carrier must provide only reasonable notice of the opportunity to declare a higher value.
Id. (citations omitted); Norton v. Jim Phillips Horse Transportation, Inc., 901 F.2d 821, 825 (10th Cir.1989); Accord Hampton v. Federal Express, 917 F.2d 1119, 1121 (8th Cir.1990). "[T]he obligation of the carrier must be determined solely from the recitals of the written contract itself." Uniden, 642 F.Supp. at 266. The specific provisions limiting a carrier's liability are found in the bill of lading or shipping invoice, which serves as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lytle v. CitiFinancial Services, Inc.
... ... • Any past, present, or future insurance, service, or product that is offered in connection with a Credit Transaction; ... which will constitute interstate commerce within the meaning of the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-9, (iii) discovery in any ... See: Todd Heller, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 754 A.2d 689, 700 (Pa.Super.2000) ... ...
-
De Lage Landen Financial Serv. Inc. v. Floors
... ... Civil Action Nos. 08–533 08–534. United" States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. July 28, 2011 ... \xC2" ... that lease agreements could include “Soft Costs” such as service, maintenance, installation, delivery, software, and training associated ... Todd Heller, Inc. v. UPS, Inc., 754 A.2d 689, 700 (Pa.Super.Ct.2000) ... ...
-
Salley v. Option One Mortg. Corp.
... ... accepted certification from a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to ... CitiFinancial Services, Inc., 810 A.2d 643 (Pa.Super.2002), which held that ... Accord Todd Heller, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 754 A.2d ... ...
-
Filson v. Radio Advertising Marketing Plan, LLC.
... ... PLAN, LLC, and Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Defendants ... Civ. No. 07-3219 ADM/JSM ... United States District Court, D. Minnesota ... March ... acceptance of the provisions.'" Todd Heller, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 754 A.2d ... ...