## Facts

- Caporicci Footwear, Ltd. (Caporicci), a Virginia shoe seller, used Federal Express Corp. (FedEx) to ship 20 packages of shoes from Fairfax, Virginia to Miami, Florida using FedEx’s Collect on Delivery (C.O.D.) service.
- Caporicci identified the recipient as “International Shoe Company” and provided the delivery address: 4995 N.W. 79th Avenue, Miami, Florida.
- The C.O.D. instructions required FedEx to collect and return cashier’s checks totaling $97,800 (approximately $98,000).
- The address provided by Caporicci was a self-storage complex, not a conventional business location.
- At the facility, a man identifying himself as a representative of International Shoe Company (using the name “Bernie” or Bernard Felice) directed the FedEx courier to unload the packages in front of a particular storage bay door rather than at the storage office.
- The man gave the courier two cashier’s checks that appeared valid on their face and together approximated the C.O.D. amount.
- FedEx returned the checks to Caporicci, which later discovered the checks were fraudulent and drawn on a non-existent bank.
- Caporicci alleged that FedEx facilitated the loss by failing to go to the storage facility’s office to confirm the delivery and by leaving the goods at a storage bay, where the goods were allegedly taken by unknown individuals.
- Caporicci sued FedEx for breach of contract, negligence, and conversion. FedEx moved for summary judgment, relying on the FedEx airbill and incorporated service conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether the FedEx airbill and incorporated service conditions governed the parties’ rights and limited FedEx’s liability for fraud in a C.O.D. transaction.
2. Whether FedEx breached the shipping contract by delivering at a self-storage complex and leaving the packages at a storage bay at the direction of the person claiming to represent the consignee, rather than delivering through the storage office.
3. Whether FedEx was negligent or committed conversion by delivering the goods and accepting cashier’s checks that were later determined to be fraudulent.

## Decision

- The court granted FedEx’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Caporicci’s claims.
- The court treated the airbill and incorporated FedEx service conditions as the controlling agreement for the shipment and C.O.D. collection.
- The court found no breach of contract because FedEx delivered to the address provided by Caporicci and acted within the service terms that permitted delivery at an alternate location when directed by the recipient or apparent representative.
- The court found no negligence because Caporicci’s theory sought to impose additional duties (such as verifying the consignee’s legitimacy through the storage office) beyond what FedEx undertook in the contract and service conditions, and the loss stemmed from third-party fraud.
- The court rejected conversion because FedEx’s delivery was authorized by the shipping instructions and service terms, and FedEx did not exercise wrongful dominion over the goods.

## Legal Principles

- In an air-carriage shipment, the airbill and incorporated carrier service conditions form the operative contract that defines the carrier’s delivery and C.O.D. collection obligations and the allocation of risk.
- A carrier providing C.O.D. service is not a guarantor of the authenticity or collectability of payment instruments when the service terms place fraud risk on the shipper and the carrier collects instruments that are facially valid.
- When service terms allow delivery at an alternate location upon instruction from the recipient or apparent representative, delivering to such a location at the delivery address supplied by the shipper does not, without more, constitute breach.
- Tort claims such as negligence and conversion cannot be used to impose duties or liability inconsistent with the parties’ shipping contract where the carrier performed as the contract and service terms allowed.

## Conclusion

Caporicci’s loss resulted from a fraudulent scheme involving a sham delivery location and worthless cashier’s checks, but the court held FedEx was not liable because it delivered to the shipper-provided address, followed recipient-directed delivery instructions allowed by the service terms, collected cashier’s checks that appeared valid, and the airbill/service conditions placed the risk of such fraud on the shipper rather than the carrier.


Caporicci Footwear v. Federal Express Corp., 894 F. Supp. 258 (1995)