668 F.Supp. 518 (1987) ALLIANZ-ULTRAMAR CIA, BRASILEIRA DE SEGUROS, Plaintiff, v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 87-2-N. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. July 16, 1987. Richard I. Gulick, Norfolk, Va., for plaintiff. Gerard P. Rowe, Norfolk, Va., for defendant. OPINION AND ORDER KELLAM, Senior District Judge. Seeking to recover for a paper roller damaged in shipment from Sao Paulo, Brazil to West Point, Virginia, plaintiff, an insurance company which insured the paper roller for the shipper and paid the damage claims, instituted this action against defendant railroad. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment to which plaintiff has replied. The parties agree there are no disputed facts insofar as the basis of the motion for summary judgment is concerned. The roller was received by the Railroad on January 7, 1986, at NIT, and transported to its Portlock Yard in Chesapeake. At the Chesapeake location the employees of the railroad discovered damages to the roller and brought this to the attention of the consignee and shipper's agent. After shipper/consignee inspected the roller, it directed it be sent to Salisbury, North Carolina for repairs. Shipper's agent had a survey conducted in mid January 1986 which was completed in March. The amount of the costs of repair was known to shipper/consignee in April, but none of this information was furnished to defendant. A notice of a preliminary claim was sent by shipper's agent to the railroad on January 13, 1986. That notice set forth: This cargo shifted while in-transit from NIT to Portlock. Shaft pushed outside the case, extent of damage not known at this time. This is a formal notice that claim will be filed by the Importer/Consignee when full particulars are ascertained. Railroad had actual notice of damage to the roller. Plaintiff attached to his response to defendant's motion for summary *519 judgment a copy of a report from Railroad's "District Freight Claims Representative" to Railroad's "Manager Field Services" dated January 30th, 1986. However, other than the notice from Agent of January 13, 1986, no written notice was given to Railroad until this suit was filed on January 2nd, 1987. A copy of the bill of lading for the shipment, affidavits and other papers are filed with the motion for summary judgment. The Interstate Commerce Commission is vested with jurisdiction over the rail shipment in question, 49 U.S.C. § 10501, and common carriers providing transportation are required to issue a bill of lading, 49 U.S.C. § 11707, as was done in this case. Regulations promulagated by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the provisions of the Bill of Lading require plaintiff to comply with the time requirements for the filing of a claim with the carrier as set out in the Bill of Lading. See 49 C.F.R. Part 1005 (1986). In particular, 49 C.F.R. § 1005.1 makes the regulation applicable to the processing of claims for damages to property being transported by a common carrier in interstate or foreign commerce. Section 1005.2(a) states that …
Original document ES