Founding Attorney
The Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, makes interstate motor carriers and freight forwarders liable for the actual loss or damage to goods they carry. Generally, shippers prove a simple prima facie case. Carriers, however, may limit liability only by a written declaration or agreement. Moreover, bills of lading may require claims within nine months and lawsuits within two years.
What the Carmack Amendment Covers
Congress enacted the Carmack Amendment in 1906 as an amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. Its purpose was therefore one national rule for interstate carrier liability. Today it lives in 49 U.S.C. § 14706 for motor carriers and freight forwarders, and in § 11706 for rail carriers. Generally, the statute applies to transportation within the United States. It also reaches shipments moving from the United States to an adjacent foreign country under a through bill of lading.
Under § 14706(a)(1), a carrier must issue a receipt or bill of lading for the property it receives. The receiving carrier and the delivering carrier are then liable to the person entitled to recover under that document. Likewise, the rule applies whether the carrier issues a straight bill of lading or an order bill of lading. Indeed, a carrier’s failure to issue a bill of lading does not affect its liability. For background on this document, see our earlier guide to what a bill of lading does.
The statute uses the words “actual loss or injury to the property.” Courts generally measure that loss by the drop in market value at the destination. Consequently, a shipper usually recovers the destination value of goods that never arrive. You can read the full text of § 14706 on the Legal Information Institute’s site.
Shipments Outside the Statute
Still, three situations fall outside the federal rule. First, state law governs purely intrastate moves. In Florida, section 677.309 of the Florida Statutes sets the carrier’s duty of care. It also allows a value-based liability limit if the consignor had a chance to declare a higher value and knew about that chance.
Second, ocean shipments that begin abroad follow a different path. In Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed an overseas import moving under a single through bill of lading. It held that the Carmack Amendment does not govern the inland rail leg of that shipment. Instead, the terms of the ocean bill of lading, which may extend the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act inland, govern that leg.
Third, brokers are not carriers. Section 13102(2) defines a broker as a person that arranges transportation by motor carrier for compensation. Therefore, a claim against a broker rests on contract or state law, not on § 14706. We return to brokers later in this article.
Proving a Cargo Claim Under the Carmack Amendment
In essence, the Carmack Amendment imposes strict liability. In Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134 (1964), the Supreme Court set out the shipper’s prima facie case. The shipper must show three things:
delivery of the goods to the carrier in good condition;
arrival in damaged condition, or no arrival at all; and
the amount of damages.
Once the shipper makes that showing, the burden shifts. The carrier must then prove two points. First, it must show that it was free from negligence. It must also show that the loss came from one of five excepted causes:
an act of God;
the public enemy;
the act of the shipper;
public authority; or
the inherent vice or nature of the goods.
The carrier needs both parts, so a carrier that cannot explain the loss will usually pay.
Sealed Containers and Proof of Contents
Proof becomes harder when a sealed trailer disappears. Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit requires direct evidence of the contents of a sealed container, not just paperwork. In UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. Megatrux Transportation, Inc., 750 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2014), customs invoices created at packing, photographs, and recovered goods satisfied that burden for a stolen load of disk drives. As a result, shippers should keep contemporaneous packing records for every high-value load.
Limiting Carrier Liability by Agreement
Full value liability is the default, but it is not absolute. Section 14706(c)(1)(A) permits a limitation of liability. The limit must be “to a value established by written or electronic declaration of the shipper or by written agreement between the carrier and shipper.” The statute adds that the value must be “reasonable under the circumstances surrounding the transportation.” In other words, the shipper must declare the value, or the parties must agree to it in writing. In addition, § 14706(c)(1)(B) requires the carrier to provide its rates, classifications, rules, and practices to the shipper on request.
The Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida, applies a four-part test. The carrier must give the shipper a reasonable opportunity to choose between two or more levels of liability. It must then obtain the shipper’s agreement to that choice. It must also issue a receipt or bill of lading before moving the goods. Meanwhile, the fourth part, maintaining a tariff, has largely given way to the duty to provide rates on request.
Sassy Doll Creations, Inc. v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 331 F.3d 834 (11th Cir. 2003), shows the test at work. In that case, a Florida shipper declared the full value of a perfume shipment on the carrier’s form. However, the carrier’s tariff required a separate request for “excess liability coverage,” and the form had no place to make it. Consequently, the court held the carrier liable for the full declared value. The lesson for carriers is to put a clear coverage choice on the bill of lading. Equally, the lesson for shippers is to fill in the declared value box and read the tariff.
Intermediaries Can Bind the Cargo Owner
In reality, cargo owners rarely deal with the carrier directly. Under Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14 (2004), and Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Westwind Maritime International, Inc., 554 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2009), a carrier may assume that an intermediary entrusted with goods can negotiate a liability limit. Accordingly, a limit agreed between a broker and a carrier can bind the owner, even if the owner never saw it. The Megatrux decision applied the same logic in reverse: an intermediary that negotiated full liability held the carrier to it.
Carmack Amendment Deadlines: Nine Months and Two Years
Undoubtedly, timing decides many cargo claims. Under § 14706(e)(1), a carrier “may not provide by rule, contract, or otherwise, a period of less than 9 months for filing a claim.” The same subsection bars “a period of less than 2 years for bringing a civil action against it.” Many bills of lading adopt those minimums as the actual deadlines. Moreover, the two-year clock runs from the date the carrier gives written notice that it has disallowed all or part of the claim.
In addition, two special rules protect claimants. First, a compromise offer is not a disallowance unless the carrier states in writing which part of the claim it rejects and why. Second, letters from the carrier’s insurer do not count on their own. Rather, the insurer must state in writing that it acts for the carrier, and it must disallow the claim with reasons.
What Counts as a Valid Claim
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s rules in 49 C.F.R. Part 370 set the minimum content of a claim. Specifically, under § 370.3(b), the claim must be in writing and identify the shipment. It must then assert liability for the loss, damage, injury, or delay. It must also demand a specified or determinable sum. Notably, a damage notation on a delivery receipt or an inspection report does not qualify on its own. Section 370.3(c) says such documents “shall, standing alone, not be considered by carriers as sufficient” to meet the filing requirements. In addition, the regulations set response deadlines for the carrier, which the table below summarizes.
| Step | Timing rule | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Carrier issues a receipt or bill of lading | When it receives the goods | 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1) |
| Claimant files a written claim | Within the bill of lading period, which may not be shorter than 9 months | 49 U.S.C. § 14706(e)(1); 49 C.F.R. § 370.3 |
| Carrier acknowledges the claim | Within 30 days of receipt, unless it pays or declines sooner | 49 C.F.R. § 370.5 |
| Carrier pays, declines, or makes a firm compromise offer | Within 120 days, then written status updates every 60 days | 49 C.F.R. § 370.9 |
| Claimant files suit | Within the bill of lading period, which may not be shorter than 2 years from written disallowance | 49 U.S.C. § 14706(e)(1) |
Preemption, Venue and Attorney’s Fees
The federal rule displaces state law for interstate cargo loss. The Supreme Court said so in Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491 (1913). Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit reads that preemption broadly. In Smith v. United Parcel Service, 296 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2002), the court described the statute’s reach. The Carmack Amendment embraces “all losses resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier’s duty as to any part of the agreed transportation.” Therefore, negligence, fraud, or breach of contract theories about a lost, damaged, or late shipment generally fail in cargo litigation.
Nevertheless, preemption has limits. Separate and distinct conduct, not merely a separate injury, can support a state claim. In Megatrux, the court held that a logistics company’s contractual indemnity claim for attorney’s fees against its carrier survived. Of course, section 14706 itself contains no attorney’s fee provision.
Venue, meanwhile, is flexible. Under § 14706(d), a claimant may sue the delivering carrier in federal or state court in a state through which it operates. Alternatively, the claimant may sue the carrier that caused the loss in the judicial district where the loss occurred. A carrier that pays may then seek apportionment under § 14706(b) from the carrier on whose line the loss happened.
Brokers, Freight Forwarders and the 2026 Montgomery Decision
Equally important, the parties’ labels matter. A freight forwarder assumes responsibility for the entire movement, and § 14706(a)(2) treats it as both the receiving and the delivering carrier. In contrast, a broker only arranges transportation and falls outside the statute. Cargo owners therefore pursue brokers through contract, and sometimes through state tort law, rather than through the Carmack Amendment.
For years, courts disagreed about whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), preempted negligent-selection claims against brokers. The Eleventh Circuit, in Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023), held such claims preempted. On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court resolved the split in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238. Significantly, a unanimous Court held that a negligent-hiring claim against a broker falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, § 14501(c)(2)(A). The reason is that “States retain authority to regulate safety ‘with respect to motor vehicles'” under the Act. In other words, in the Court’s view, such a claim concerns the vehicles used in transportation. The Court’s opinion lists Aspen among the decisions that had come out the other way.
To be sure, Montgomery involved a highway crash, not a cargo loss. Even so, it reopens negligent-selection theories against brokers in Florida courts. At the same time, the Court stressed that state laws on prices, routes, and services with no safety connection remain preempted. Shippers and insurers should therefore expect brokers to tighten carrier vetting and contract terms.
Freight Claim Documentation and Practical Steps in Florida
Certainly, cross-border logistics through Florida ports and the Mexican and Canadian borders raises the stakes. Our transportation and logistics disputes practice regularly sees the same avoidable Carmack Amendment mistakes in international trade. A freight claim succeeds or fails on documentation, so the shipper or consignee should assemble these items early:
The bill of lading or shipping receipt, which identifies the shipper, the consignee, and the goods.
The delivery receipt or proof of delivery, with every shortage or damage exception noted at delivery.
The commercial invoice or other proof of the declared value, which supports the claim amount.
Photographs of the damaged shipment and its packaging, plus any carrier inspection report.
A salvage statement explaining whether the goods were repaired, resold, or discarded.
The written freight claim itself, on the carrier’s claim form or in a letter that meets 49 C.F.R. § 370.3.
Concealed damage, in particular, deserves special care. Many carrier tariffs set short notice windows for damage discovered after delivery, so report it immediately and request an inspection. Likewise, when cargo insurance pays the insured shipper, the insurer steps into the shipper’s shoes and files the freight claim under the same deadlines. Finally, shippers should declare the value on the bill of lading, request excess coverage where the tariff requires it, and calendar the nine-month and two-year deadlines from the start.
Furthermore, related problems often travel together. For example, a delayed or damaged container may also trigger terminal charges; see our guide to disputing demurrage charges. Likewise, when U.S. Customs detains the goods, the analysis changes again; our separate guide to customs seizures at Port Miami explains that process.
Frequently Asked Questions
Partly. Generally, the statute covers domestic transportation and exports to Canada or Mexico under a through bill of lading. However, under Regal-Beloit, it does not govern the inland leg of an overseas import moving under a single through bill of lading issued abroad. The ocean bill of lading controls that leg instead.
Check the bill of lading first. First, the carrier may set a claim period. However, § 14706(e)(1) forbids any period shorter than nine months for a claim and two years for a lawsuit. The suit period runs from the carrier’s written disallowance of the claim.
Yes, but only if it follows the rules. Specifically, the limit must rest on the shipper’s written declaration or a written agreement at a reasonable value. In the Eleventh Circuit, the carrier must also give the shipper a real opportunity to choose a higher level of liability. It must issue the bill of lading before the move as well.
Not under the Carmack Amendment, because brokers are not carriers. Instead, claims against brokers rest on contract or state law. After Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II (2026), negligent-hiring claims against brokers are no longer automatically preempted by the FAAAA, although other state-law theories may still be.
Conclusion
The Carmack Amendment gives shippers a strong, uniform remedy: strict liability for the actual loss, a light prima facie burden, and firm minimum deadlines. In exchange, carriers may limit exposure through properly documented released rates. Consequently, the parties who prevail in cargo litigation handle the paperwork correctly at pickup, at delivery, and within the claim window.
Transnational Matters PLLC advises shippers, carriers, forwarders, and insurers on Carmack Amendment claims and cross-border cargo disputes across the Americas. To that end, contact our team to discuss a cargo loss, a liability limitation, or a broker dispute tailored to your situation.
