## Facts

- TSC Express Co. (TSC) was a motor common carrier subject to the Interstate Commerce Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission’s (ICC) tariff-filing regime.
- Between about May 1988 and September 1989, TSC transported goods for Krueger Ringier, Inc. (KRI) at negotiated freight charges that were lower than the tariff rates TSC had on file with the ICC.
- KRI paid TSC the negotiated amounts in full at the time of shipment.
- TSC did not file the negotiated rate agreement with the ICC as required for deviation from filed tariff rates.
- Roughly two years later, TSC filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, and L. Lou Allen was appointed trustee.
- The trustee audited TSC’s freight bills for the three years before the bankruptcy filing and concluded KRI owed $12,229 in “undercharges,” calculated as the difference between the filed tariff rates and the amounts KRI had paid.
- The trustee sued KRI to recover the claimed undercharges as an asset of the bankruptcy estate and moved for summary judgment (seeking undercharges plus interest and costs).
- KRI opposed and sought its own summary judgment relief, contending that attempts by a non-operating carrier (or its trustee) to collect tariff undercharges after negotiating and accepting lower rates could be an “unreasonable practice” under the Negotiated Rates Act of 1993 (NRA).
- KRI also asked the bankruptcy court to stay the adversary proceeding and refer key issues—unreasonable practice and rate reasonableness—to the ICC under the primary-jurisdiction doctrine.
- KRI further argued that some shipments involved intrastate traffic in Georgia and raised questions about whether TSC had appropriate tariffs and/or authority for those movements, creating factual disputes.

## Issues

1. Whether the NRA applies to a Chapter 7 trustee’s tariff-based undercharge action against a shipper that paid negotiated rates.
2. Whether the bankruptcy court should stay the adversary proceeding and refer to the ICC the questions of (a) unreasonable practice under the NRA and (b) reasonableness of the tariff rates, under primary-jurisdiction principles.
3. Whether either party was entitled to summary judgment in light of disputed facts, including the characterization of certain shipments as Georgia intrastate traffic and the existence of proper tariffs/authority.

## Decision

- The court denied the trustee’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court denied KRI’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The court granted KRI’s request to stay the adversary proceeding and referred to the ICC the issues concerning unreasonable practice under the NRA and the reasonableness of the rates.
- The court declined to grant KRI summary judgment on the Georgia intrastate-shipment arguments because genuine disputes of material fact remained regarding tariff filings and related authority.

## Legal Principles

- Under the filed-rate doctrine in motor-carrier regulation, a carrier generally may charge only rates contained in tariffs filed with the ICC; however, Congress may limit the enforceability of tariff-undercharge claims through later statutes.
- The Negotiated Rates Act of 1993 authorizes ICC consideration of whether it is an unreasonable practice for a non-operating motor carrier (or its trustee) to seek tariff undercharges after negotiating and collecting lower charges.
- Challenges to the reasonableness of tariff rates and statutory “unreasonable practice” determinations are matters that call for agency determination in the first instance, and a court may stay the case and refer those questions to the ICC under the primary-jurisdiction doctrine.
- A bankruptcy trustee’s causes of action are subject to the same nonbankruptcy limits that would apply outside bankruptcy; bankruptcy administration does not insulate undercharge claims from defenses and standards established by federal transportation law.
- Summary judgment is improper where material factual disputes remain, including disputes about the nature of the shipments and the existence or applicability of tariffs and operating authority.

## Conclusion

In Re Allen held that the Negotiated Rates Act applies to a Chapter 7 trustee’s motor-carrier undercharge claim based on filed tariffs, that the bankruptcy court should stay the adversary proceeding and refer unreasonable-practice and rate-reasonableness questions to the ICC under primary jurisdiction, and that neither side was entitled to summary judgment because statutory ICC determinations and disputed facts—such as issues involving alleged Georgia intrastate shipments and tariff filings—prevented judgment as a matter of law.


In Re Allen, 183 Bankr. 519 (1994)