Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Converting Systems, Inc. v. Hot-Line Freight System, Inc.

Converting Systems, Inc. v. Hot-Line Freight System, Inc.

Case Date: 11/26/2003
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-02-3880 Rel

SIXTH DIVISION
November 26, 2003



No. 1-02-3880
 
 
CONVERTING SYSTEMS, INC., an
Illinois Corporation,

                      Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HOT-LINE FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.,

                      Defendant-Appellee.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County


No. 02 M1 127348

Honorable
John G. Laurie,
Judge Presiding.



JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the court:

A machine shipped by plaintiff Converting Systems, Inc. (CSI), was damaged duringtransport by defendant, carrier Hot-Line Freight System, Inc. (Hot-Line). CSI sued Hot-Lineunder federal law for repair costs of more than $25,000. The circuit court of Cook Countyentered judgment for CSI in the amount of $2,500 and, on Hot-Line's motion pursuant to section2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2002)), dismissed thecomplaint to the extent that it sought damages greater than that amount. On appeal, CSIcontends the court improperly limited Hot-Line's liability for damages absent actual notice of theliability limitations contained in Hot-Line's tariff. For the reasons that follow, we vacate thejudgment.

According to the undisputed facts, in November 2001, machinery supplier CSI entered anagreement with a shipping broker to transport a machine from Addison, Illinois, to Shawano,Wisconsin. The bill of lading for the shipment was prepared by CSI and included minimalinformation: the departure and destination addresses, the name of the carrier (Hot-Line), theshipping broker's "third-party" billing address, a brief description of the four items shipped (one"rebuilt in-line bag machine," a crate, a box, and "wood for skid") and the weight of the shipment(5,000 pounds). The bill included the typewritten name of a CSI employee, Todd Ayer, indicatingthe bill was "Checked by" him, but it was signed only by a Hot-Line employee. The bill also hadHot-Line's shipping label affixed to it.

The shipment was refused by the recipient for being damaged and it was sent back to CSI. CSI rebuilt the machine at a cost of $25,460.

CSI sought reimbursement of the repair costs from Hot-Line and the shipping broker, andultimately filed a complaint for property damage of $25,460 under the Carmack Amendment tothe Interstate Commerce Act (Act) (49 U.S.C.A.