Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. TiEnergy, LLC

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in action under Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, seeking over $100,000 in demurrage charges for time plaintiff’s rail cars were detained at defendant’s facility beyond time tariff allowed for loading and unloading railroad ties from said cars. While defendant argued that, although bill of lading listed defendant as “consignee,” it had never agreed to be consignee so as to become liable for said demurrage charges, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant was actual consignee, where: (1) defendant was not mere intermediary that was indifferent to railroad ties that it ultimately processed and sold to third-party; (2) defendant was not agent of third-party since defendant retained full payment for processed railroad ties sold to third-party; and (3) defendant had both control of railroad ties and financial interest in them. Ct. further noted that had defendant been mere agent of third-party, it could have given, but did not give, plaintiff notice that it lacked beneficial title to railroad ties while another entity had such title. As such, defendant remained subject to default rule that consignee must pay demurrage charges when rail cars delivering shipments are detained longer than time tariff allows.