U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION › Part PART B— MOTOR CARRIERS, WATER CARRIERS, BROKERS, AND FREIGHT FORWARDERS › Chapter CHAPTER 137— RATES AND THROUGH ROUTES

49 U.S.C. § 13706

Liability for payment of rates

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Liability of Consignee.—Liability for payment of rates for transportation for a shipment of property by a shipper or consignor to a consignee other than the shipper or consignor, is determined under this section when the transportation is provided by motor carrier under this part. When the shipper or consignor instructs the carrier transporting the property to deliver it to a consignee that is an agent only, not having beneficial title to the property, the consignee is liable for rates billed at the time of delivery for which the consignee is otherwise liable, but not for additional rates that may be found to be due after delivery if the consignee gives written notice to the delivering carrier before delivery of the property—(1) of the agency and absence of beneficial title; and(2) of the name and address of the beneficial owner of the property if it is reconsigned or diverted to a place other than the place specified in the original bill of lading.(b)Liability of Beneficial Owner.—When the consignee is liable only for rates billed at the time of delivery under subsection (a), the shipper or consignor, or, if the property is reconsigned or diverted, the beneficial owner is liable for those additional rates regardless of the bill of the lading or contract under which the property was transported. The beneficial owner is liable for all rates when the property is reconsigned or diverted by an agent but is refused or abandoned at its ultimate destination if the agent gave the carrier in the reconsignment or diversion order a notice of agency and the name and address of the beneficial owner. A consignee giving the carrier erroneous information about the identity of the beneficial owner of the property is liable for the additional rates.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 103, Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 872.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 10744 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “Finally, the Claims Court also rejected Estes’s claim under 49 U.S.C. § 13706 , which governs the liability of consignees for shipping charges incurred by a common carrier, following Claims Court precedent holding that the statute does not “create liability in the consignee in…”
Cent. Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 104 (Fed. Cl. 2009). · cites it 4× “In response, the government asserts that “[i]n merely contending that a bill of lading establishes privity of contract between the government and motor carrier, Central [Freight] is attempting to deliberately obscure an important distinction between a government bill of lading…”
Fresh Am. Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 2d 411 (N.D. Tex. 2005). · cites it 3× “Lund argues that under 49 U.S.C. § 13706 , Wal-Mart has independent liability to it for the shipping charges in question.”
Gaines Motor Lines, Inc. v. Klaussner Furniture Indus., Inc., 734 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “The Motor Carriers filed this action in the Middle District of North Carolina under 49 U.S.C. § 13706 (b) of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act against Klaussner and Salem 3 on April 22, 2009 to recover the $562,326.”
Estes Express Lines v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 416 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 4× “Contract case; Motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); Standard of review; Subcontractor lacked privity of contract with the United States; Contractor was not agent of Federal agency; 49 U.S.C. § 13706 ; Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
S & B Transp., Inc. v. Allou Distributors, Inc., 41 F. Supp. 2d 388 (E.D.N.Y 1999). · cites it 4× “(“Chesapeake”) (collectively “Allou”) to recover unpaid transportation brokerage charges under the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 13706 (the “Act”) for brokerage services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendants.”
C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 213 F.3d 474 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “(CAR), filed suit against Darden and Trans-Pac claiming that, under 49 U.S.C. § 13706 , Darden and/or Trans-Pac (collectively, Appellees) must pay it for the freight charges generated by the three shipments.”
Cent. Transp. Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 336 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “1999) (holding that 49 U.S.C. § 13706 does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction over disputes involving independent brokerage contracts between broker and shipper).”
W. Home Transp., Inc. v. Hexco, LLC, 28 F. Supp. 3d 959 (D.N.D. 2014). “In Gaines Motor Lines, the Fourth Circuit also rejected arguments for jurisdiction based upon the statutory provisions of the ICCTA, including 49 U.S.C. § 13706 defining consignee liability, which the court held inapplicable because it presumably applies only where a federal…”
Divine Enter. v. Walmart (E.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 4× “The FAC alleges 5 three claims against Walmart: (1) third party liability of 6 carrier pursuant to an implied-in-fact contract; (2) unjust 7 enrichment; and (3) 49 U.S.C. § 13706 liability. See FAC ¶¶ 48– 8 61.”
Qfs Transp., LLC v. Intermodal Cartage Co, LLC (S.D. Ind. 2023). · cites it 4× “In addition to its claims against the original Defendants, in its Proposed Amended Complaint Plaintiff asserts claims against the Consignee Defendants for violation of 49 U.S.C. § 13706 and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment.”
Fracht FWO Inc. v. TPR Holdings LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2021). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff’s claim appears to arise solely from 49 U.S.C. § 13706 . See id. ¶ 13 .3 However, “[s]ubject-matter jurisdiction over state-law 3 Plaintiff’s complaint is not in compliance with Fed.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.