an introduction to intermodal commerce and law
TRANSCRIPT
INTERMODAL COMMERCE
History – from break-bulk to “The Box”
Break-Bulk at the Piers – Chaos, Injuries, and Freight Loss,
Damage, and Theft
The Long Move Toward Containerization
Containers Became the Norm for Shipping, Railroading
INTERMODAL COMMERCE
Railroads and Ocean Carriers have and use Chassis
Different sizes for ships and trains
No wheels . . .
INTERMODAL COMMERCE
. . . The Solution – The Intermodal Chassis
Functional equivalent of a trailer – a Motor Vehicle . . .
Connects to a tractor just as a trailer
Wheels, brakes and air lines, lights and wiring, on
a frame that holds a Container
INTERMODAL COMMERCE
The Chassis qualifies as a Motor Vehicle under 49 U.S.C. §30102(a)(7)
(7) “motor vehicle” means a vehicle driven or drawn by
mechanical power
And manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads,
and highways . . .
INTERMODAL COMMERCE
How does a Container get from a Ship or Train onto the Highways?
Offloaded by cranes from Ships or Trains at Seaports or
Rail Terminals
Mounted onto Intermodal Chassis
Driven off terminals by truckers (“Outgated”) . . . at that point
Interchanged to the trucker
INTERMODAL COMMERCE
Containers are also interchanged from Ships to Railroads –
Rail lines extending to the piers
Containers are removed from Ships and placed directly
upon Trains
No “motor vehicle” is involved in this operation
INTERMODAL COMMERCE
Who Owns the Chassis, and Where are they kept?
Owned primarily by independent companies who lease
Chassis to their Customers
Customers include ocean carriers, railroads, and motor carriers
INTERMODAL COMMERCE
Where are they Kept?
At Seaports – in Chassis Pools
Proprietary or Contributory
At Rail Terminals – generally leased to the rail carrier
Management, maintenance and repair, accounting, record-keeping,
and Interchanging
INTERMODAL LAW
Why is the Interchange important? Because it starts the –
Rental obligations under lease agreements
Indemnity and liability obligations under contracts
Insurance attachment under contracts
INTERMODAL LAW
How Do Intermodal Equipment Owners and Lessors Protect Against
Liability?
Uniform Intermodal Interchange & Facilities Access Agreement
Equipment Interchange Agreements
Insurance Requirements – Additional Insured Status
The Graves Amendment – 49 U.S.C. §30106
INTERMODAL LAW
Uniform Intermodal Interchange & Facilities Access Agreement (“UIIA”)
Managed by the Intermodal Association of North America
Signatories – Ocean Carriers, Railroads, and Motor Carriers
wishing to haul intermodal containers and chassis
Third-Party Beneficiaries – Intermodal Equipment Owners and
Providers
INTERMODAL LAW
UIIA – Features
Regulation of Parties’ Relationships
Indemnification Provisions, especially for Equipment Owners
and Providers
Insurance Requirements
INTERMODAL LAW
UIIA – Features – Indemnification
Section F.4. Indemnity
“Motor Carrier agrees to defend, hold harmless and fully indemnify
the Indemnitees [includes container and chassis owners] (without
regard to whether the Indemnitees’ liability is vicarious, implied in
law, or as a result of the fault or negligence of the Indemnitees) . . .
against any and all claims resulting from the Motor Carrier’s use or
maintenance of the Equipment during an Interchange Period.”
INTERMODAL LAW
UIIA – Features – Insurance
Section F.6.a. Insurance Required
A motor carrier participant shall maintain a “commercial automobile
policy with a combined single limit of $1,000,000 or greater, insuring
all Equipment involved in Interchange including vehicles of its agents
or contractors, and shall name the Provider as additional insured.”
INTERMODAL LAW
UIIA – Features – Insurance
Section F.6.c. Insurance – Endorsement UIIE-1
“Motor carrier shall have in effect, and attached to its commercial
automobile policy a Truckers Uniform Intermodal Interchange
Endorsement (UIIE-1), which includes the coverages specified in
Section F.4. * * * Evidence of the endorsement of the policy and the
coverage required by this provision shall be provided to IANA by the
insurance company.”
INTERMODAL LAW
UIIA – Governing Law
MD law applies to the UIIA – permits indemnity for one’s own
negligence. NY, NJ, MA, TN agree.
MA and TN liken the obligations to insurance, even in the face of
TN’s Anti-Indemnification Statute.
TX has refused to apply MD law and applied the TX statute barring
indemnity for one’s own negligent acts.
INTERMODAL LAW
Protecting Against Vicarious Liabilities
State Vicarious Liability Statutes – E.g., New York Vehicle and
Traffic Law Section 388
State Decisions imposing vicarious liability on innocent owners
Joint Venture Liabilities
INTERMODAL LAW
Protecting Intermodal Equipment Owners and Lessors Against Liability
The Graves Amendment – 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (2005)
(a) An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a
person shall not be liable under the law of any State or political
subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle, for
harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use,
operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the
rental or lease [the Interchange Period], if --
INTERMODAL LAW
Protecting Intermodal Equipment Owners and Lessors Against Liability
The Graves Amendment – 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (2005)
(1) the owner is engaged in the trade or business of leasing motor
vehicles; and
(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of
the owner.
INTERMODAL LAW
Protecting Intermodal Equipment Owners and Lessors Against Liability
The Graves Amendment – 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (2005) –
Potential Legal Issues
A. What constitutes “renting or leasing”?
B. What constitutes a “motor vehicle”?
C. What constitutes “negligence on the part of the owner”?
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER – Eisenberg v Cope Bestway Express, Inc.*
Interpool, Inc., leased a fleet of chassis to CSX pursuant to an
Equipment User Agreement, with chassis positioned at various CSX rail
terminals throughout the U.S.
A CSX container was offloaded at the CSX Buffalo terminal onto an
Interpool Chassis. The container and chassis were outgated from the
rail terminal by the trucker, Cope Bestway Express, Inc., and
transported the load to the railroad’s customer in Rochester.
* 17 N.Y.S.3d 457, 2015 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 6935 (App.Div. 2015)
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER – Eisenberg v Cope Bestway Express, Inc.*
In Rochester, the truck ran a red light and collided with a car occupied
by three college students. All were injured.
One female student sustained debilitating neurological injuries.
Suits were brought in New York.
* 17 N.Y.S.3d 457, 2015 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 6935 (App.Div. 2015)
Eisenberg v Cope Bestway
Interchange of the container/chassis to Cope Expressway – Triggered indemnities and insurance coverage for Interpool:
• against CSX under the Equipment User Agreement
• against Cope Bestway Express under the UIIA and a separate EIA
Eisenberg v Cope Bestway - The Railroad and Trucker Honor their Obligations:
CSX and its insurer extended significant indemnity and insurance rights
Cope Bestway and its insurer extended defense, indemnity, and insurance
Cope Bestway’s insurer paid all of our fees through the Appeal
Eisenberg v Cope Bestway - Interpool obtains Dismissal
Summary Judgment granted on the Graves Amendment
Upheld on Appeal
Issues Decided under Graves Amendment:
• The Chassis was leased to CSX
• The Chassis is a motor vehicle under 49 U.S.C. § 30102
• Interpool was free from Negligence
Eisenberg v Cope Bestway – The Outcome
The Trucker’s Policy was paid out among the three Plaintiffs
CSX was exonerated but nevertheless contributed to an overall settlement to avoid an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals
Interpool paid nothing toward the settlement
Interpool’s legal expenses were fully paid by the trucker’s insurer