Flying Tiger Line, Inc. v. N.Y. Mackintosh Co., Inc., 44 N.Y.2d 963 (1978)
Air carrier tariffs filed pursuant to federal law are binding on both the shipper and the carrier, regardless of the shipper’s actual knowledge of the tariff provisions, and failure to comply with the tariff’s notice of claim requirements bars counterclaims for breach of contract or negligence.
Summary
Flying Tiger Line sued N.Y. Mackintosh for unpaid shipping charges. Mackintosh counterclaimed for breach of contract and negligence, alleging damage due to Flying Tiger’s failure to transport goods as agreed. The New York Court of Appeals held that Mackintosh’s counterclaims were barred because it failed to provide written notice of claim within the time limits specified in Flying Tiger’s tariffs, which were filed as required by federal law. These tariffs constituted the written contract of carriage and were binding, preempting the field, irrespective of Mackintosh’s awareness of their specific terms.
Facts
Flying Tiger Line, an air carrier, sued N.Y. Mackintosh Co., a shipper, to recover unpaid charges for air transportation services. Mackintosh asserted counterclaims against Flying Tiger Line for breach of contract and negligence. These counterclaims stemmed from allegations that Flying Tiger Line failed to transport the goods on one aircraft, using one waybill, and failed to use special containers as allegedly agreed. Mackintosh did not provide written notice of these claims within the time frame specified in Flying Tiger Line’s tariffs.
Procedural History
The lower court granted summary judgment to Flying Tiger Line on its affirmative cause of action. Mackintosh’s counterclaims were initially addressed at Special Term and then reviewed by the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division’s resettled order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a shipper’s failure to file a written notice of claim within the time limits prescribed by an air carrier’s tariffs, filed as required by federal law, bars the shipper’s counterclaims against the carrier for breach of contract and negligence.
Holding
Yes, because the tariffs filed by the air carrier constitute the contract of carriage and are binding on both the shipper and carrier, regardless of the shipper’s actual knowledge; failure to comply with the notice of claim provisions bars the counterclaims.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that Flying Tiger’s tariffs, filed pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act, constituted the binding written contract of carriage. The court emphasized that federal law preempts the field of air carrier regulation, making the tariffs binding on both the shipper and the carrier, irrespective of the shipper’s actual knowledge of their provisions. The court stated that “Constituting the written contract of carriage under a regulatory scheme in which Congress has pre-empted this field…the tariffs are binding upon shipper and carrier, regardless of the shipper’s lack of actual knowledge of their provisions.” The court reasoned that because Mackintosh failed to present a written notice of claim within the time limitations specified in the tariffs, its counterclaims for breach of contract and negligence were barred. The court found support in prior case law, including Crosby & Co. v Compagnie Nationale Air France, affirming the binding nature of such tariffs. This ensures uniformity and predictability in air carrier contracts, which is a significant policy consideration. There were no dissenting or concurring opinions noted in the memorandum decision.