Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

CHARGING HIGHER RATES THAN TARIFF
4 During the above period of time HFL accepted liability for loss or
damage to cargo entrusted to it for transportation to Hawaii and in fact
did pay claims presented by various shippers Ex I Para 4 Ex 2 B
through 2 I Ans 6
5 HFL made no oral representations to its shippers of its intention to
disclaim liability for loss andor damage to cargo Ex 1 Para 5 Ex 2 B
through 2I Ans 7
6 HFL s still effective tariff on file with the FMC has continuously
specified a rate from the U S West Coast to Hawaii of 72 per cubic
foot Ex 1 Para 6 HFL Tariff FMC F No 1 Original Page 38
7 During the above period of time HFL charged shippers varying
amounts ranging from 72 to 91 per cubic foot for transportation of
FAK to Hawaii from the U S West Coast Ex 1 Para 1 Ex 2 B
through 2I Ans 10 Ex 4 Para 2
8 During the above period of time HFL selected the underlying
carriers to be utilized for the water portion ofthe transportation to Hawaii
and at no time did
any shipper have a voice in that selection Ex 1
8 Ex 2 B through
Para
2 I Ans 14
9 HFL s Tariff FMC F No 1 contained a bill of lading provision
which appears
to disclaim HFL s liability for loss or damage to cargoes
incurred during ocean transportation if the vessel utilized is not owned or
demise chartered by HFL HFL Tariff FMCF No 1 Provision 4 Item
200 However as shown by the responses to a questionnaire contained
in Ex 2 B through 2 I most of HFL s shippers were not aware of the
existence of HFL s Tariff and they had not been informed that HFL was
not liable for its shipments while they were not in HFL s possession Ex
2 B through 2I Ans 6 In fact HFL s shippers did consider HFL liable
for its shipments Ex 2 B through 2I Ans 6
10 Starting in October 1970 according to Mr Kesley MacMeekin the
Manager of HFL s San Francisco Office HFL would not arrange for the
pick up or delivery of shipments to HFL Mr MacMeekin advised the
Commission s District Investigator James A Glugoski that when he
received an inquiry for a shipment to be consolidated he advised the
customer that HFL is only a consolidator and cannot legally arrange for
the pick up ofthe shipment
could arrange for trucking by any
47
He informed the customer that the customer
motor carrier or its could use Jim s
Trucking Co Jim s at whose terminal HFL is located He would then
give the customer the telephone number of Jim s Trucking Co Jim s was
containers Ex 3 Para 2
HFL s San Francisco agent for stuffing
11 Mr James Stewart Operator of Jim s advised District Investigator
Glugoski that Jim s acted as HFL s agent only with respect to stuffing
and loading containers but not with respect to any pick up and delivery
19 F M C