Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Rini v. United Van Lines

Rini v. United Van Lines

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

January 17, 1997, Decided

No. 95-2334

Opinion

 [*503]  TORRUELLA, Chief Judge. Plaintiff-appellee Jane Rini ("Rini") hired defendant-appellant United Van Lines ("United") to move her belongings from South Carolina to Massachusetts. Rini's household items were packed on August 20, 1990, and loaded into a moving van the next day. Her belongings arrived at their destination on August 27, but certain items were missing. Rini proceeded to file a claim with United. Following an acrimonious attempt to settle the claim, Rini filed a complaint in [**2]  district court on December 22, 1992. The complaint included claims under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 11707 (1992), 1 as well as state law claims of negligence, misrepresentation, use of unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Rini v. United Van Lines, 903 F. Supp. 224, 225 (1995).

The jury found for Rini on the Carmack Amendment, negligence, and misrepresentation claims in connection with the claims process. See Rini, 903 F. Supp. at 230. On the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the jury found for United. Id. The district court found that United, in handling Rini's claim, had willfully violated chapter 93A. Id. at 232-33. Damages were awarded in the amount of  [**3]  $ 50,000 on the Carmack claim and a total of $ 300,000 on the state law claims. Id. 234-35. In addition, Rini was awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $ 146,950, costs in the amount of $ 7,359.60, and prejudgment interest in the amount of $ 100,000. See Memorandum Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Pre-Judgment Interest, Nov. 1, 1995. This appeal by United ensued.

We must determine whether the state law claims on which Rini prevailed are preempted by the Carmack Amendment. These claims are for negligence, misrepresentation, and violation of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

104 F.3d 502 *; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1169 **

JANE RINI, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. UNITED VAN LINES, INC., Defendant - Appellant.

Subsequent History:  [**1]  Certiorari Denied October 6, 1997, Reported at: 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4614.

Prior History: APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge.

Disposition: Reversed and remanded

CORE TERMS

carrier, preempted, Carmack Amendment, state law, regulation, state law claim, bill of lading, claims process, misrepresentation, transportation, damages, cases, costs, interstate commerce, state statute, preemption

Transportation Law, Carrier Duties & Liabilities, Damages, Constitutional Law, Supremacy Clause, Federal Preemption, General Overview, Supreme Law of the Land, Governments, Legislation, Effect & Operation, Amendments, Rail Transportation, Carmack Amendment, Business & Corporate Compliance, Transportation Law, Air & Space Transportation, Charters, Bills of Lading, State & Local Regulation, Torts, Intentional Torts, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defenses, Transportation Torts, Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction