Toombs v. Getter Trucking, Inc., 92-263

Citation256 Mont. 282,846 P.2d 265
Decision Date25 February 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92-263,92-263
PartiesRobert TOOMBS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GETTER TRUCKING, INC., a Montana Corporation, Defendant and Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Montana

V. Joe Leckie, Billings, for plaintiff and appellant.

John R. Davidson, Billings, for defendant and respondent.

HUNT, Justice.

Plaintiff and appellant Robert Toombs brought suit in the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County. Toombs alleged that defendant and respondent Getter Trucking owed him monies under a contract entered into between the parties. The District Court granted Getter Trucking's motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed. We affirm.

The only issue before this Court is whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Getter Trucking.

Getter Trucking was a common motor carrier of property under authorities issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and various state regulatory agencies. Getter Trucking had tariffs on file with the ICC. Federal law provides that a motor carrier providing transportation service subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC shall provide that transportation only at the rate specified for the transportation service contained in a tariff that is filed with the ICC. The requirement that a carrier must charge all customers according to the established tariffs is known as the "filed rate doctrine."

Toombs and Getter Trucking entered into a written agreement in February 1980 whereby Toombs leased a tractor with driver to Getter Trucking. Pursuant to the contract, Toombs transported commodities under tariff on behalf of Getter Trucking. The contract provided that Toombs was to receive 67 percent of the net revenue derived by Getter Trucking. The lease agreement between the parties ran from February 27, 1980, through February 21, 1981. During the course of the relationship, Toombs did not complain that he was not being paid the correct amount.

On December 10, 1982, Toombs brought suit alleging that he was entitled to compensation that he had not received. The District Court stated that there was no evidence presented that Toombs was not paid 67 percent of the amounts Getter Trucking billed its customers for services provided by Toombs. However, Toombs alleges that Getter Trucking charged its customers less than it was required to charge pursuant to the established tariffs. Getter Trucking denies charging less to its customers than was required by federal law. However, Getter Trucking contends that even if it did charge its customers less than required by federal law, Toombs is only entitled, pursuant to the contract, to 67 percent of the net revenue derived by the carrier, which would be the actual amounts billed to the customers. Getter Trucking argues that the contract does not require them to charge any particular rate, but simply provides that Toombs will receive 67 percent of the rate charged. Toombs argues that Getter Trucking is indeed required to charge a particular rate to customers. Toombs contends that the contract term "net revenue derived by carrier" can only mean that amount that Getter Trucking was obligated to charge under federal law.

The District Court agreed with the reasoning of Getter Trucking. The District Court determined that "net revenue derived by carrier" meant the amount billed to the customer, stating that "[i]n no way can it mean some greater amount that should have been billed by the defendant to the customer." The District Court, therefore, did not find it necessary to make a factual finding concerning the rates Getter Trucking had actually charged its customers. The District Court stated that:

Without deciding whether or not the proper tariff rates were charged, the Court is of the view that in no event can plaintiff recover its percentage on amounts greater than amounts actually billed customers.

The District Court granted Getter Trucking's motion for summary judgment from which Toombs now appeals.

Toombs contends that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Getter Trucking. A District Court may grant summary judgment when:

[T]he pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Lorang v. Fortis Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 17 July 2008
    ...the existence of any genuine issue of material fact" by making a "clear showing as to what the truth is." Toombs v. Getter Trucking, Inc., 256 Mont. 282, 284, 846 P.2d 265, 266 (1993). In doing so, the moving party must contend with our rules which favor the party opposing summary ¶ 38 In d......
  • Christian v. Atl. Richfield Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 1 September 2015
    ...issue of material fact' by making a 'clear showing as to what the truth is.'" Lorang, ¶ 37 (quoting Toombs v. Getter Trucking, Inc., 256 Mont. 282, 284, 846 P.2d 265, 266 (1993)). If there is any doubt as to whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, that doubt must be resolved in fav......
  • Christian v. Atl. Richfield Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 1 September 2015
    ...issue of material fact’ by making a ‘clear showing as to what the truth is.’ ” Lorang, ¶ 37 (quoting Toombs v. Getter Trucking, Inc., 256 Mont. 282, 284, 846 P.2d 265, 266 (1993) ). If there is any doubt as to whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, that doubt must be resolved in f......
  • Monroe v. Agency, DA 09-0242.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 9 June 2010
    ...... Toombs v. Getter Trucking, 256 Mont. 282, 284, 846 P.2d 265 ... see also . R.H. Grover, Inc., v. Flynn Ins. Co., 238 Mont. 278, 777 P.2d 338 (1989). ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT