• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Question about website information versus bill of lading

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

lambda79

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Tennesee

I recently moved and while the moving company was holding my belongings, their warehouse flooded and nearly everything I own was destroyed. The moving company denied my loss claim, based on the following two arguments: they said that the damage was not covered under their "catastrophic liability" policy since only four specific events mentioned in the bill of lading (signed contract) are covered; and that they are not liable as a common carrier since the flood is considered an "Act of God".

The companies website stated in their FAQ, under the heading "Are my goods insured?"

"For catastrophic loss such as collision, overturn, or fire, coverage of $3.00 per pound per piece is also included with your **** price quote."

However, in the bill of lading it said:

"In the event of cargo damage caused by trailer fire, vehicle collision, vehicle overturn or complete container theft, *** includes coverage of $3.00 per pound per piece with a maximum liability of $7,500 per ***."

The company says that based on the bill of lading, only the four specific events listed are covered at $3.00 per pound; they have since changed their website to read "For catastrophic loss due to collision, overturn, or fire..."

So I have two questions:

1) Is the companies original statement in their FAQ a legally binding offer of coverage for more general types of catastrophic loss other than the four specific events listed in the bill of lading?

2) If not, is the company liable for anything for misrepresenting the scope of the liability coverage on their website?

It would seem that according to their position, even the corrected version of the website is false. For example, if they were to negligently set their warehouse on fire that would not be a "trailer fire" so should not be covered at $3.00/pound according to them (their basic liability is much lower); but it is certainly a "catastrophic loss due to... fire".
 


Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
From an 1869 Supreme Court case
"When the damage is shown to have resulted from the immediate act of God, such as a sudden and extraordinary flood, the carrier would be exempt from liability, unless the plaintiff shall prove that the defendant was guilty of some negligence in not providing for the safety of the goods. That he could do so must be proven by the plaintiff, or must appear in the facts of the case."

It is hard to see how the soundness of this proposition can be made clearer than by its bare statement. A common carrier assumes all risks except those caused by the act of God and the public enemy. One of the instances always mentioned by the elementary writers of loss by the act of God is the case of loss by flood and storm. Now, when it is shown that the damage resulted from this cause immediately, he is excused.
If you go to scholar.google.com and search for "bailment flood damage", you get some interesting cases.

In general, you'll have to prove negligence on the part of the carrier.

You will also have a hard time proving misrepresentation since you signed a bill of lading.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top