- 12 -
excess of $100, petitioner was liable to the shipper for the
value of the package up to $100.
In June 1983, petitioner filed supplements to its ICC
tariffs amending the provision related to the method of
determining rates for shippers under the original tariff. The
supplements provided an additional clause with respect to the
method of determining rates:
Unless otherwise directed by the shipper, the carrier
may remit excess valuation charges to an insurance
company as a premium for excess valuation cargo
insurance for the shipper's account and on its behalf.
If the carrier does so, claims for loss of or damage to
the shipper's property will be filed with and settled
by the carrier on behalf of the insurance company. In
the event that the insurance company fails to pay any
claim for loss of or damage to the shipper's property
under the terms of its policy, the carrier will remain
liable for loss or damage within the limits declared
and paid for.[11]
Although the supplements were filed June 1983 and became
effective July 1983, petitioner did not remit EVC's to an
insurance company before 1984.
The declared value in excess of $100 is indicated on
petitioner's package pickup record.12 The package pickup record
11Identical changes were made to petitioner's State tariffs.
12Petitioner's pickup record states:
Unless a greater value is declared in writing on this
receipt, the shipper hereby declares and agrees that
the released value of each package or article not
enclosed in a package covered by this receipt is $100,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011