B-144950, MAY 23, 1961
Highlights
TO TRANSCON LINES: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 19. CHARGES OF $1656 ($828 FOR EACH VEHICLE) WERE BILLED AND PAID ON THE BASIS OF EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE. IN OUR INITIAL AUDIT WE DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICABLE CHARGES WERE $1. THIS COMPUTATION WAS BASED ON A CLASS-70 VOLUME RATE OF $3.22 PER 100 POUNDS ON A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 22. IN AUGUST 1960 WE WERE INFORMED BY HEADQUARTERS. THAT THE RECORDS INDICATE THE FIRST VAN WAS LOADED TO FULL VISIBLE CAPACITY AND THE SECOND VAN WAS NOT FULLY LOADED. UPON A REAUDIT WE FOUND THAT YOU WERE DUE $119 FOR THE EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE ON THE SECOND VAN (10. 000 POUNDS AT $4.60 PER 100 POUNDS) BUT THAT NO FURTHER CHARGE WAS DUE ON THE FIRST VAN BECAUSE OF THE DECISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN CURTIS LIGHTING INC.
B-144950, MAY 23, 1961
TO TRANSCON LINES:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 19, 1961, FILE B.723.25.RF, ACKNOWLEDGED FEBRUARY 6, 1961, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST A REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED DECEMBER 29, 1960, DISALLOWING $119.60 OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $239.20 ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES SUBMITTED UNDER SUPPLEMENTAL BILL NO. 2-C-5, OUR CLAIM NO. TK 697554. THE SHIPMENT, WEIGHING 25,155 POUNDS, CONSISTED OF ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENTS, NOIBN, MOVED IN TWO TRUCKS (NUMBERED 4889 AND T-193) FROM WARNER ROBINS, GEORGIA, TO TULSA, OKLAHOMA, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. AF-8192617 DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1959.
CHARGES OF $1656 ($828 FOR EACH VEHICLE) WERE BILLED AND PAID ON THE BASIS OF EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE, COMPUTED AT THE FIRST-CLASS RATE OF $4.60 PER 100 POUNDS ON A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 18,000 POUNDS FOR EACH VEHICLE. IN OUR INITIAL AUDIT WE DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICABLE CHARGES WERE $1,416.80. THIS COMPUTATION WAS BASED ON A CLASS-70 VOLUME RATE OF $3.22 PER 100 POUNDS ON A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 22,000 POUNDS FOR EACH VEHICLE, SINCE THE EXCLUSIVE-USE ANNOTATION ON THE BILL OF LADING DID NOT COMPLY STRICTLY WITH THE EXCLUSIVE-USE PROVISIONS OF ITEM 10020-D OF THE SOUTHERN MOTOR CARRIERS RATE CONFERENCE, AGENT'S TARIFF NO. 505-A, MF- I.C.C.NO. 843.
IN THE LATTER PART OF 1959 YOU REFUNDED THE OVERCHARGES OF $239.20 AND IN MARCH 1960 SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL NO. 2-C-5 FOR THE SAME AMOUNT. IN AUGUST 1960 WE WERE INFORMED BY HEADQUARTERS, ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA, THAT THE RECORDS INDICATE THE FIRST VAN WAS LOADED TO FULL VISIBLE CAPACITY AND THE SECOND VAN WAS NOT FULLY LOADED. UPON A REAUDIT WE FOUND THAT YOU WERE DUE $119 FOR THE EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE ON THE SECOND VAN (10,556 POUNDS AS 18,000 POUNDS AT $4.60 PER 100 POUNDS) BUT THAT NO FURTHER CHARGE WAS DUE ON THE FIRST VAN BECAUSE OF THE DECISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN CURTIS LIGHTING INC. V. MID-STATES FREIGHT LINES, INC., 303 I.C.C. 576.
IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU CONTEND THAT THE DECISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE IS NOT FOR APPLICATION IN THIS INSTANCE. IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE, AS HERE, THE FIRST VAN WAS LOADED TO CAPACITY. IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSION HAS HELD THAT THE TRUCKLOAD RATING AND CHARGES WERE PROPER FOR APPLICATION BECAUSE ONCE A VEHICLE IS LOADED TO CAPACITY A SHIPPER DERIVES NO BENEFIT FROM EXCLUSIVE USE, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO ACCORD TRUCKLOAD SERVICE TO LESS- THAN-TRUCKLOAD SHIPMENTS.
ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF DECEMBER 29, 1960, APPEARING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE, IS SUSTAINED.