Supreme Court of the United States

Reiter v. Cooper

March 8, 1993507 U.S. 258

Summary

Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court held that shippers sued for tariff undercharges may assert statutory unreasonable-rate claims as counterclaims, notwithstanding the filed-rate doctrine. When asserted only in recoupment, those claims are not barred by the statutory limitations period. The claims accrue upon delivery and do not require prior payment or exhaustion before the Interstate Commerce Commission. Primary jurisdiction permits the court to await the Commission's determination of rate reasonableness without losing jurisdiction. Any separate judgment on the carrier's collection claim requires the discretionary determination prescribed by Rule 54(b), with the carrier's insolvency weighing against separate judgment but not categorically barring it. The Court reversed and remanded. Justice Blackmun dissented; no dissenting opinion or explanation is supplied.

Holding

  • Availability of an unreasonable-rate counterclaim in an undercharge action.. A shipper may assert a claim under 49 U.S.C. § 11705(b)(3) as a counterclaim in the carrier's undercharge action, and mistaken designation as a defense does not defeat it.
  • Application of the limitations period to recoupment.. The statutory two-year limitations period does not bar an unreasonable-rate counterclaim seeking only recoupment against a timely carrier action arising from the same shipments.
  • Whether prior payment is required.. A shipper may assert its statutory unreasonable-rate claim after delivery and before paying the tariff charges.
  • Primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies.. A shipper need not obtain an ICC determination before filing its reparations claim in court; the court may retain jurisdiction while allowing the parties to seek an administrative determination of rate reasonableness.
  • Separate judgment on the carrier's collection claim.. Immediate separate judgment is not automatic; it requires the express determination under Rule 54(b) that there is no just reason for delay. Carrier insolvency weighs against separate judgment but is not an absolute bar.

Docket 91-1496

Cited authorities

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF