B-176972, MAR 12, 1973, 52 COMP GEN 575

B-176972: Mar 12, 1973

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

TRANSPORTATION - RATES - VOLUME SHIPMENTS - CONDITIONS TO CONSTITUTE THE FACT THAT A SHIPMENT OF PALLETS WAS COVERED BY FOUR BILLS OF LADING DOES NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE SHIPMENT FROM A VOLUME SHIPMENT THAT IS WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SECTION 5. WHICH PROVIDES THAT A SHIPMENT IS "A LOT OF FREIGHT TENDERED TO THE CARRIER BY ONE CONSIGNOR AT ONE PLACE AT ONE TIME FOR DELIVERY TO ONE CONSIGNEE AT ONE DESTINATION ON ONE BILL OF LADING. " SINCE ALL CONDITIONS BUT THE "ONE BILL OF LADING" REQUIREMENT WERE MET. THE CARRIER ON THE BASIS OF CORRECTION NOTICES AND OTHER EVIDENCE KNEW THE SHIPMENT WAS TENDERED AS ONE LOT ON THE SAME DAY FOR DELIVERY TO ONE CONSIGNEE AT ONE DESTINATION. AS THE CARRIER IS ONLY ENTITLED TO THE LOWER RATE APPLICABLE TO VOLUME SHIPMENTS.

B-176972, MAR 12, 1973, 52 COMP GEN 575

TRANSPORTATION - RATES - VOLUME SHIPMENTS - CONDITIONS TO CONSTITUTE THE FACT THAT A SHIPMENT OF PALLETS WAS COVERED BY FOUR BILLS OF LADING DOES NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE SHIPMENT FROM A VOLUME SHIPMENT THAT IS WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SECTION 5, ITEM 110, OF THE NATIONAL MOTOR FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION, WHICH PROVIDES THAT A SHIPMENT IS "A LOT OF FREIGHT TENDERED TO THE CARRIER BY ONE CONSIGNOR AT ONE PLACE AT ONE TIME FOR DELIVERY TO ONE CONSIGNEE AT ONE DESTINATION ON ONE BILL OF LADING," SINCE ALL CONDITIONS BUT THE "ONE BILL OF LADING" REQUIREMENT WERE MET, AND THE CARRIER ON THE BASIS OF CORRECTION NOTICES AND OTHER EVIDENCE KNEW THE SHIPMENT WAS TENDERED AS ONE LOT ON THE SAME DAY FOR DELIVERY TO ONE CONSIGNEE AT ONE DESTINATION, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE VOLUME RATE. THEREFORE, AS THE CARRIER IS ONLY ENTITLED TO THE LOWER RATE APPLICABLE TO VOLUME SHIPMENTS, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR A HIGHER FREIGHT RATE. TRANSPORTATION - RATES - EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE - BILL OF LADING NOTATION REQUIREMENT WHERE THE DESTINATION CANADIAN CARRIER REFUSED TO REFUND THE OVERCHARGE OCCASIONED BY THE ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF EXCLUSIVE USE CHARGES ON A SHIPMENT OF HELIUM CYLINDERS, AND PARTICIPATING CARRIERS ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE OVERCHARGE, THE ORIGIN CARRIER PROPERLY WAS HELD LIABLE AND THE OVERCHARGE RECOVERED BY SETOFF SINCE THE CORRECTION NOTICE THAT ADDED TO THE BILL OF LADING THE NOTATION "AUTHORIZED USE OF SINGLE TRUCK LOAD BY THE CARRIER IS MANDATORY TO EXPEDITE SHIPMENT" DID NOT SATISFY THE TARIFF REQUIREMENT FOR A NOTATION TO INDICATE THE SHIPPER REQUESTED EXCLUSIVE USE, AND THE OMISSION OF SUCH A NOTATION MAY NOT BE WAIVED. FURTHERMORE, THE BILL OF LADING DOES NOT SHOW SEALS WERE APPLIED, AND AS THE SHIPMENT WAS INTERCHANGED WITH A FOREIGN CARRIER, IT IS DOUBTFUL THE SHIPMENT WAS ACCORDED THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF A VEHICLE FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION WITHOUT TRANSLOADING.

TO RINGSBY UNITED, MARCH 12, 1973:

YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1972, REQUESTS REVIEW OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION REGARDING CLAIMS TOTALING $4,905.25. CERTAIN OF THE CLAIMS INVOLVED WERE MADE BY UNITED BUCKINGHAM FREIGHT LINES AND OTHERS BY RINGSBY TRUCK LINES WHICH WE UNDERSTAND ARE AFFILIATES OF YOUR COMPANY AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS LETTER, WILL BE REFERRED TO AS YOUR CLAIMS. WE ALSO HAVE YOUR TRACER LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8, 1973, ASKING FOR A REPORT AS TO THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE MATTER.

YOUR CLAIM FOR $1,899.92, YOUR FILES R-609X1($643.86), R 607X1($702.65), AND R-608X1($553.41), WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED JUNE 28, 1972(TK-937744) AND YOUR CLAIM FOR $2,090.19, YOUR FILE R-599X1, WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED OCTOBER 26, 1972(TK-937745). YOUR CLAIM FOR $915.14, FILE U 519X1, RELATES TO A NOTICE OF OVERCHARGE (FORM 1003) DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1970, SENT TO MILLER & BROWN FREIGHT LINES LTD., THE DESTINATION CARRIER, FOR A SHIPMENT UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING A-6284173. YOUR PROTEST OF THIS ACTION BY LETTERS DATED JUNE 7, 1972, AND JULY 18, 1972, WAS CONSIDERED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION AND DENIED IN A LETTER DATED JULY 31, 1972, TC-SR-TK-173309-EPD. THE AMOUNT INVOLVED ($915.14) WAS COLLECTED ON OCTOBER 25, 1972, BY OFFSET AGAINST YOUR BILL 4623 72.

YOUR CLAIMS FOR $1,899.92 AND $2,090.19 RELATE TO THE CHARGES COLLECTED BY YOU FOR TRANSPORTATION OF "PALLETS I/S PER ITEM 1605 RM TDR 15A" FROM CARRIERS TERMINAL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, TO THE NAVY AMMUNITION DEPOT, CRANE, INDIANA, DURING MAY AND JUNE 1969. THE PALLETS MOVED UNDER GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING E-8385709(42,627 POUNDS), E-8385712(42,570 POUNDS), E-8385713(35,592 POUNDS), AND E 8385714(33,500 POUNDS).

THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ARTICLES SHIPPED ON THE FOUR BILLS OF LADING INDICATE THE PALLETS WERE TO MOVE UNDER RATES SHOWN IN ITEM 1605 OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU QUOTATION 15-A, U.S. GOVERNMENT QUOTATION I.C.C. 24, WHICH PROVIDES RATES OF $2.81 A 100 POUNDS WHERE THE MINIMUM WEIGHT OF THE SHIPMENT IS 60,000 POUNDS SUBJECT TO A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 30,000 POUNDS PER VEHICLE USED. ALSO, THAT ITEM OF THE TENDER PROVIDES FOR A HIGHER RATE OF $4.11 A 100 POUNDS WHERE THE MINIMUM WEIGHT OF THE SHIPMENT IS 40,000 POUNDS SUBJECT TO A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 40,000 POUNDS PER VEHICLE USED. THE BILLS OF LADING EACH ALSO CONTAIN NOTATIONS SHOWING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF WHAT THE CHARGES WERE TO BE ON THE WEIGHT CARRIED UNDER THE PARTICULAR BILL OF LADING. SUCH DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN EACH CASE EQUAL THE CHARGES AT THE LOWER RATE OF $2.81 PER 100 POUNDS WHEN ADDED TO THE TRANSLOADING CHARGES WHICH ARE NOT DISPUTED. YOUR CLAIMS UNDER THE FOUR BILLS OF LADING ARE PREDICATED ON THE APPLICATION OF THE HIGHER RATE OF $4.11 PER 100 POUNDS. THE GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING CORRECTION NOTICES FORMS DD 1352, WERE ISSUED ON JULY 27, 1970, AND SIGNED BY YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, ED PERRY, THE SAME PERSON WHO SIGNED THE FOUR GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING AS YOUR AGENT. EACH CORRECTION NOTICE SHOWS THAT THE BILL OF LADING TO WHICH IT APPLIES WAS ISSUED TO COVER THE FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH AND FINAL PART OF A COMPLETE SHIPMENT COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 241,599 POUNDS.

IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 30, 1971, TO OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION (NOW TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION), YOU REFER TO SECTION 5, ITEM 110 OF THE NATIONAL MOTOR FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION WHICH PROVIDES:

A SHIPMENT IS A LOT OF FREIGHT TENDERED TO THE CARRIER BY ONE CONSIGNOR AT ONE PLACE AT ONE TIME FOR DELIVERY TO ONE CONSIGNEE AT ONE DESTINATION ON ONE BILL OF LADING.

IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE CORRECTION NOTICES ISSUED ABOUT A YEAR AFTER TENDER OF THE PROPERTY FOR SHIPMENT DO NOT BRING THIS MOVEMENT WITHIN THE SINGLE SHIPMENT RULE SO AS TO APPLY THE 60,000 POUND VOLUME RATE PROVIDED BY RM QUOTATION 15-A.

THE CORRECTION NOTICES SIGNED BY YOUR AGENT ARE NOT THE ONLY EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THIS MATERIAL WAS TENDERED TO YOUR COMPANY AS ONE LOT ON THE SAME DAY. WE ENCLOSE A COPY OF A LETTER DATED JULY 31, 1972, SIGNED BY J. S. PAONESSA, CHIEF, TRAFFIC SERVICES DIVISION, OAKLAND ARMY BASE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, STATING:

ENTIRE SHIPMENT WAS OFFERED TO THE CARRIER ON 20 MAY 1969. IT MOVED UNDER GBLS E-8385709 THROUGH 714.

THE RECEIPTS BY YOUR AGENT, ED PERRY, ON ALL FOUR BILLS OF LADING ARE DATED MAY 28, 1969. ADDITIONALLY EACH OF THE BILLS OF LADING REFERS TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU, INC., QUOTATION 15-A, U.S. GOVERNMENT QUOTATION I.C.C. 24, ITEM 1605, WHICH PROVIDES THE 60,000 POUND VOLUME RATE OF $2.81 A 100 POUNDS, AND THE CHARGES INDICATED ON EACH BILL OF LADING BY THE SHIPPING OFFICER ARE DERIVED FROM THAT RATE.

THESE FACTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE RELATING TO SOME OF THE SHIPMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN J. H. ROSE TRUCK LINE, INC. V. THE UNITED STATES, NOS. 194-69 AND 28-70(DECIDED JULY 14, 1972). REGARDING THESE SHIPMENTS THE COURT STATED:

MOST OF THE VOLUME SHIPMENT CLAIMS REMAINING FOR DISPOSITION AROSE OUT OF SITUATIONS IN WHICH A MILITARY INSTALLATION ISSUED TWO OR MORE GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING TO THE SAME CARRIER ON THE SAME DAY TO COVER THE MOVEMENT OF THE SAME CONSIGNEE AT THE SAME LOCATION OF A QUANTITY OF MATERIAL REQUIRING A NUMBER OF VEHICLES CORRESPONDING TO THE NUMBER OF BILLS OF LADING, WITH THE FIRST BILL IN THE SERIES STATING THAT IT WAS THE 1ST BILL OF LADING ISSUED TO COVER A PORTION OF A VOLUME SHIPMENT, WITH EACH OTHER BILL IN THE SERIES INDICATING ITS PROPER PLACE IN THE SEQUENCE (2D BILL, 3RD BILL, ETC.) AND CONTAINING A CROSS REFERENCE TO THE BILL OR BILLS PRECEDING IT, AND WITH THE LAST BILL IN THE SERIES CONTAINING THE STATEMENT THAT IT WAS THE FINAL BILL OF LADING ISSUED TO COVER THE REMAINDER OF A VOLUME SHIPMENT.

IN A SITUATION SUCH AS THAT DESCRIBED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, THE CARRIER KNEW THAT THE ENTIRE QUANTITY OF MATERIAL WAS TENDERED AS A SINGLE VOLUME SHIPMENT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF BILLS OF LADING ISSUED BY THE SHIPPING INSTALLATION ON THE PARTICULAR SHIPMENT. THE CARRIER ALSO KNEW THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS ASKING IT TO TRANSPORT THE ENTIRE QUANTITY AS A SINGLE VOLUME SHIPMENT AND SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE VOLUME RATE. ACCEPTING THE MATERIAL FOR TRANSPORTATION UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PLAINTIFF IMPLIEDLY AGREED TO HANDLE IT ON THE BASIS THUS INDICATED BY THE DEFENDANT IN ITS TENDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE PLAINTIFF IS NOW BOUND BY ITS AGREEMENT AND IS ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THAT SUCH AGREEMENT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH ITS OWN TARIFF DEFINITION OF THE TERM "SHIPMENT." NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ON THE VOLUME SHIPMENT CLAIMS WHICH AROSE OUT OF TRANSACTIONS THAT FITTED THE FACTUAL PATTERN OUTLINED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH.

SEE ALSO B-156463, JULY 11, 1966, COPY ENCLOSED.

YOUR CLAIM FOR $915.14, FILE U-519X1, RELATES TO A SHIPMENT OF HELIUM CYLINDERS, FULL, WEIGHING 20,520 POUNDS, AND MANIFOLDING WEIGHING 60 POUNDS FROM NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA, TO EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. A-6284173, DATED JULY 15, 1969. THE DESTINATION CANADIAN CARRIER, MILLER & BROWN FREIGHT LINES LTD., ASSESSED AND COLLECTED CHARGES OF $1,830.18 DURING JANUARY 1970 FOR THIS TRANSPORTATION. IN THE POSTPAYMENT AUDIT OF THIS BILL OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION DETERMINED THAT THE CHARGES SHOULD BE $915.04 BASED ON THE TRUCKLOAD RATE OF $3.68 A 100 POUNDS APPLIED TO 24,000 POUNDS MINIMUM WEIGHT PLUS A SERVICE CHARGE OF $1.58 AND A WAREHOUSE CHARGE OF $5. NOTICE OF OVERCHARGE (FORM 1003), DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1970, WAS SENT TO MILLER & BROWN REQUESTING REFUND OF $915.14. UNITED BUCKINGHAM FREIGHT LINES, NOW PART OF RINGSBY UNITED, WAS THE ORIGIN CARRIER AND SINCE THE CANADIAN CARRIER REFUSED TO REFUND THE OVERCHARGE AND PARTICIPATING CARRIERS ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR OVERCHARGES, THE OVERCHARGE WAS RECOVERED BY SETOFF FROM YOU.

IN SUPPORT OF YOUR PROTEST OF THIS OVERCHARGE, AND IN EFFECT CONTENDING EXCLUSIVE USE CHARGES WERE PROPER, YOU SUBMITTED A BILL OF LADING CORRECTION NOTICE DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1972, WHICH PURPORTS TO CORRECT GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING A-6284173 BY ADDING A NOTATION AS FOLLOWS:

AUTHORIZED EXCLUSIVE USE OF SINGLE TRUCK LOAD BY THE CARRIER IS MANDATORY TO EXPEDITE THIS SHIPMENT FOR "PROJECT BUCKSHOT."

YOU ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF A LETTER DATED JUNE 26, 1972, FROM DAVID W. CAINE, HEAD, INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH BRANCH OFFICE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, WHICH STATES IN PERTINENT PART:

UNFORTUNATELY, MR. BRILL WHO WAS THE ISSUING TRANSPORTATION OFFICER FOR THE ORIGINAL GBL WAS DECEASED LAST DECEMBER 1971. I HAVE ISSUED THE GBL CORRECTION NOTICE BASED ON HIS PENCILLED BACK-UP NOTATIONS FOR THE SHIPMENT WHICH ARE ON FILE. THESE NOTES INDICATED A RATE OF $3.57 CWT FOR 24,000 LBS., NW50 B CLASS, 1 TRUCK LOAD AND $4.55 CWT FOR 5,000 LBS. IT WAS ALSO SHOWN THAT USE OF AN "EXCLUSIVE VAN" WAS A REQUIREMENT OF THE SHIPMENT. THE RATES INDICATED ARE THOSE ISSUED FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS BY THE MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TERMINAL SERVICE (MTMTS), FOR USING DOD AGENCIES.

EXCLUSIVE USE CHARGES ON A SHIPMENT SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED WOULD BE PAYABLE UNDER TARIFF 50-B OF THE MIDDLEWEST MOTOR FREIGHT BUREAU MF I.C.C. 387, ITEM 14(2) OF WHICH, IN PART, PROVIDES:

(2) UPON REQUEST OF THE CONSIGNOR, THE CARRIER WILL FURNISH A VEHICLE *** WHICH WILL BE ASSIGNED TO, AND EXCLUSIVELY USED BY THE CARRIER FOR TRANSPORTATION OF A SHIPMENT.*** A BILL OF LADING BEARING NOTATION INDICATING THAT THE SHIPPER REQUESTS SUCH EXCLUSIVE USE MUST BE PROVIDED FOR EACH SHIPMENT.***.

(3) SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH (5) HEREOF, (NOT HERE APPLICABLE) A SHIPMENT MOVING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ITEM WILL BE TRANSPORTED IN THE VEHICLE SO ASSIGNED, FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION WITHOUT TRANSFER OF LADING.

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN GUSS BLASS V. POWELL BROS. TRUCK LINES, 53 M.C.C. 603(1951), CITING THE WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT THE RULES IN A TARIFF CANNOT BE WAIVED, HELD THAT THE OMISSION OF A REQUIRED BILL OF LADING ENDORSEMENT WAS A DEFECT FATAL TO THE APPLICATION OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES BASED ON AN EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE RULE EVEN THOUGH EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE ACTUALLY WAS REQUESTED AND FURNISHED. SEE ALSO SOUTHERN KNITWEAR MILLS, INC. V. ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT, INC., 9 FED. CARRIER CASES 710(1953); CAMPBELL "66" EXPRESS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 302 F.2D 276(1962), 157 CT. CL. 365. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OMISSION OF THE REQUIRED BILL OF LADING ANNOTATION, A DEFECT WHICH IS NOT CURED BY LATER STATEMENTS OF SHIPPERS' INTENTION, DEFEATS THE CLAIM FOR CHARGES FOR EXCLUSIVE USE EVEN IF THEY OTHERWISE WERE PROPERLY PAYABLE. 45 COMP. GEN. 384.

ALSO, FOR A CARRIER TO BE ENTITLED TO EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE CHARGES PROVIDED BY ITEM 14 OF MIDDLEWEST MOTOR FREIGHT BUREAU TARIFF 50-B, MF- I.C.C. 516, IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE CARRIER TO SHOW THAT THE PREMIUM SERVICE WAS REQUESTED ON THE BILL OF LADING. IT IS ALSO INCUMBENT UPON THE CARRIER TO PROVE THE SERVICE PROMISED IN THAT ITEM WAS RENDERED. THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE CONSIGNEE'S SIGNATURE ACCEPTING THE GOODS IN GOOD ORDER AND CONDITION WITHOUT EXCEPTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE SERVICE WAS ACTUALLY RENDERED. SEE PACIFIC INTERMOUNTAIN EXPRESS COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 167 CT. CL. 266, 270-271(1964).

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PRESENT RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE INVOLVED SHIPMENT FROM NEW BRIGHTON TO EDMONTON WAS ACCORDED EXCLUSIVE USE OF A VEHICLE WITHOUT TRANSLOADING. THE BILL OF LADING FAILS TO SHOW THAT SEALS WERE APPLIED, AND ALTHOUGH ITEM 14 DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE SERVICE BE EXPEDITED, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE FURNISHED TO BACK UP THE CORRECTION NOTICE THAT IT WAS MANDATORY TO EXPEDITE THE SHIPMENT FOR "PROJECT BUCKSHOT." THE PROPERTY WAS DELIVERED TO UNITED BUCKINGHAM ON JULY 15, 1969, AND THE DESIRED DELIVERY DATE (DDD) IS SHOWN AS JULY 21, 1969, WHICH WAS MONDAY. THE CONSIGNEE'S CERTIFICATE SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS DELIVERED ON JULY 23, 1969, 2 DAYS LATE. THE FACT THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS INTERCHANGED WITH A FOREIGN CARRIER, MILLER & BROWN FREIGHT LINES LTD., RAISES A FURTHER QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE SHIPMENT WAS ACCORDED THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF A VEHICLE FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION WITHOUT TRANSLOADING.

IN 44 COMP. GEN. 799, 781-782(1965) WE STATED:

THE BEST EVIDENCE OF THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF AUTHORIZED EXCLUSIVE USE SERVICES IS A SHOWING OF A CLEAR SEAL RECORD ON THE BILL OF LADING. THIS CAN BE DONE BY PROOF THAT A SHIPMENT WAS SEALED AT ORIGIN AND THAT THE SEALS WERE NOT BROKEN WHEN THE SHIPMENT ARRIVED AT DESTINATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR SEAL RECORD WE CONSIDER WHATEVER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE A CARRIER CARES TO SUBMIT WHICH REASONABLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE PREMIUM SERVICE WAS FURNISHED. FOR EXAMPLE, SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE MAY TAKE THE FORM OF A CERTIFICATION ON THE BILL OF LADING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE SHIPPING AGENCY, OR OF COPIES OF CARRIER'S RECORDS MADE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE SHIPMENT SHOWING THAT NO OTHER FREIGHT WAS TRANSPORTED ON THE TRUCK OR TRAILER IN WHICH THE SHIPMENT MOVED. ALSO, VARIOUS OTHER RECORDS PREPARED BY CARRIERS IN THEIR NORMAL BUSINESS OPERATIONS MIGHT CONTAIN SUFFICIENT PERTINENT INFORMATION TO SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PREMIUM SERVICE. THESE RECORDS INCLUDE ROAD MANIFESTS, TRIP TICKETS AND REPORTS, DISPATCH SHEETS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS DESCRIBING THE CARGO CARRIED ON THE TRUCK OR TRAILER OVER THE ENTIRE ROUTE OF MOVEMENT. SINCE THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY RECEIVED BY YOUR AGENT, ED PERRY, AT OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, ON OR ABOUT MAY 28, 1969, FOR TRANSPORTATION TO CRANE, INDIANA, WAS TENDERED AS A SINGLE SHIPMENT AND SINCE THE BILL OF LADING CORRECTION NOTICES ARE ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE SIGNATURE OF THE SAME AGENT, ED PERRY, THE SETTLEMENTS DATED JUNE 28, 1972, AND OCTOBER 26, 1972, BY OUR TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIMS FOR $1,899.92 AND $2,090.19 ARE SUSTAINED.

ALSO, FOR THE REASONS SHOWN ABOVE, THE DENIAL OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $915.14 RELATING TO THE SHIPMENT FROM NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA, TO EDMONTON, CANADA, IS SUSTAINED.