U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION › Part PART B— MOTOR CARRIERS, WATER CARRIERS, BROKERS, AND FREIGHT FORWARDERS › Chapter CHAPTER 147— ENFORCEMENT; INVESTIGATIONS; RIGHTS; REMEDIES

49 U.S.C. § 14705

Limitation on actions by and against carriers

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—A carrier providing transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under chapter 135 must begin a civil action to recover charges for transportation or service provided by the carrier within 18 months after the claim accrues.(b)Overcharges.—A person must begin a civil action to recover overcharges within 18 months after the claim accrues. If the claim is against a carrier providing transportation subject to jurisdiction under chapter 135 and an election to file a complaint with the Board or Secretary, as applicable, is made under section 14704(c)(1), the complaint must be filed within 3 years after the claim accrues.(c)Damages.—A person must file a complaint with the Board or Secretary, as applicable, to recover damages under section 14704(b) within 2 years after the claim accrues.(d)Extensions.—The limitation periods under subsection (b) of this section are extended for 6 months from the time written notice is given to the claimant by the carrier of disallowance of any part of the claim specified in the notice if a written claim is given to the carrier within those limitation periods. The limitation periods under subsections (b) and (c) of this section are extended for 90 days from the time the carrier begins a civil action under subsection (a) to recover charges related to the same transportation or service, or collects (without beginning a civil action under that subsection) the charge for that transportation or service if that action is begun or collection is made within the appropriate period.(e)Payment.—A person must begin a civil action to enforce an order of the Board or Secretary against a carrier within 1 year after the date of the order.(f)Government Transportation.—This section applies to transportation for the United States Government. The time limitations under this section are extended, as related to transportation for or on behalf of the United States Government, for 3 years from the later of the date of—(1) payment of the rate for the transportation or service involved;(2) subsequent refund for overpayment of that rate; or(3) deduction made under section 3726 of title 31.(g)Accrual Date.—A claim related to a shipment of property accrues under this section on delivery or tender of delivery by the carrier.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 103, Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 907.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11706 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 44 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case: Inter-Coastal Xpress, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Inter-Coastal Xpress, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 16× “The *1362 ICA also provides for a federal “civil action to recover chai'ges for transportation or service provided by [a common] carrier,” 49 U.S.C. § 14705 (a), including “transportation for the United States Government,” 49 U.”
C.H. Robinson Co. v. Paris & Sons, Inc., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (N.D. Iowa 2001). · cites it 11× “INTRODUCTION In this motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), one of the co-defendants, Midwest Agriculture Warehouse (“Midwest”), seeks dismissal of the plaintiffs action, as against…”
Arctic Express, Inc. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce NA, Inc., 366 B.R. 786 (S.D. Ohio 2007). · cites it 13× “The Bankruptcy Opinion stated that: (1) Arctic’s claims for unpaid Freight Charges are premised in state law and not, therefore, affected by statute of limitations set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 14705 ; and (2) the Carmack Amendment ( 49 U.”
CGH Transp., Inc. v. Quebecor World, Inc., 261 F. App'x 817 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “The court determined that 49 U.S.C. § 14705 (a) required that a carrier commence an action to recover charges for shipping services within eighteen months of the claim’s accrual, which is the date of delivery, 49 U.”
Exel Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Sigma Vita, Inc., 654 S.E.2d 665 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 15× “Exel contends that the trial court’s rulings were erroneous because Sigma’s claim was barred by the expiration of the 18-month statute of limitation set forth in 49 USC § 14705 (a). We agree and reverse.”
Emmert Indus. Corp. v. Artisan Assocs., Inc., 497 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 5× “DISCUSSION This is a diversity action in which none of Emmert’s affirmative claims presents a federal question, and Emmert contends the district court erred on two grounds in concluding that its first two claims are barred by the ICCTA limitations period codified at 49 U.S.C. §…”
Kennedy Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc., & Hemlock Semiconductor Corp., & Hemlock Semiconductor, LLC v. Emmert Indus. Corp., d/b/a Emmert Int'l, 53 N.E.3d 505 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 29× “On February 13, 2015, Kennedy moved to dismiss 3 on the ground Emmert did not bring the action within the eighteen- month limitations period set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 14705 (a), which Kennedy asserts preempts Indiana’s ten-year limitation period.”
Fitzpatrick v. Morgan S., Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 978 (W.D. Tenn. 2003). · cites it 5× “§ 14704 (a)(2), and, even if Congress did create a private right of action, Plaintiffs claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations contained in 49 U.S.C. § 14705 (c). Plaintiff responded in opposition on February 24, 2003.”
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. United Van Lines, 556 F.3d 690 (8th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “In March 2007, the court concluded that plaintiffs’ claims are subject to the two-year statute of limitations found in 49 U.S.C. § 14705 (c) and dismissed all remaining claims that arose prior to February 16, 2003.”
Crowley Gov't Servs., Inc. v. GSA, 38 F.4th 1099 (D.C. Cir. 2022). “After the United States moved to dismiss, Crowley amended its complaint, adding an alternative count against the GSA under 49 U.S.C. § 14705 , seeking recovery of the charges already deducted by the GSA through the 31 U.”
TAG/ICIB Servs., Inc. v. Pan Am. Grain Co., 215 F.3d 172 (1st Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C.A. § 14705 . We hold, therefore, that the ICA’s three-year statute of limitations, which was imported into the Shipping Act, supplies the benchmark limitations period during the time when the Shipping Act governed TAG/ICB’s demur-rage claims; and that thereafter, the…”
Barber Auto Sales, Inc. v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., 494 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (N.D. Ala. 2007). · cites it 3× “The 18-Month Limitations Period of 49 U.S.C. § 14705 (b) Under 49 U.S.C. § 14705 (b), a claim for overcharges brought by a shipper against carrier must be brought within 18 months after the claim accrues.”
Show all 44 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.