Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al v. Trinity Logistics, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY 	§
COMPANY OF AMERICA and JAFEC USA, 	§
INC., 	§
Plaintiffs,
VS.
TRINITY LOGISTICS, INC. and MD
GLOBAL FREIGHT, INC .,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-4717
Before the Court is Defendant Trinity Logistics, Inc's 12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismis s.
(Doc. No. 14). Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion, and the time to do so has since passed. For
the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Travelers Property Casualty Company of America as subrogee of JAFEC USA,
Inc. ("Travelers") and JAFEC USA, Inc. ("JAFEC") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") brought this case
against Defendants Trinity Logistics, Inc. ("Trinity") and MD Global Freight, Inc. ("MD Global"),
alleging damage to a shipment of cargo. (Doc. No. 11 at 1). 1 According to the First Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff JAFEC entered into a rental agreement with Saiga Machinery Rental &
Trading Inc. for a specific crane, which included a Boom Tip Assembly. (Id. 	at 2). JAFEC
subsequently entered into a Bill of Lading agreement with Trinity to transport the rented Boom
Tip Assembly 	from 	California to Port Isabel, Texas. 	(Id.). 	Trinity then 	subcontracted the
transportation to MD Global, a trucking company. (Id.) . At some point on its journey, the Boom
1 The facts described herein are alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 11) and are taken as true for
purposes of the Motion to Dismiss.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04717 Document 29 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

Tip Assembly sustained significant damage, which caused JAFEC to incur losses valued at over
two million dollars, which included the repair of the Boom Tip Assembly. (Id.).
Travelers had issued an insurance policy to JAFEC which was in full force and effect on
the date of the loss. (Id. at 3). Travelers paid indemnity payments to and on behalf of JAFEC,
resulting in Travelers' status as a subrogee and real party in interest to this suit. (Id.). JAFEC claims
it incurred damages that were not covered or reimbursed under the relevant Travelers policy. (Id.).
As a result, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the 125th Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Texas, alleging claims against Trinity for negligence, negligent entrustment, breach of contract,
breach of warranty, and asserting a claim under the Carmack Amendment. (Doc. No. 1 at 1) ; (Doc.
No. 11). Trinity removed the case to this Court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. No.
1 at 2). Trinity then filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 2), but before the Court ruled on that
motion, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 11) . Trinity then filed the present
12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 14), which is now ripe for resolution.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant may file a motion to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Similarly, a plaintiff may file a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss a counterclaim. See Kansas v. Nebraska, 527 U.S. 1020 (1999). To defeat a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)( 6), a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face. " Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "The plausibility standard is not akin to
a 'probability requirement ,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
2
Case 4:25-cv-04717 Document 29 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 ). "Where a complaint pleads facts that are
'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it ' stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of entitlement to relief."' Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the
complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Sonnier v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 509 F.3d 673 , 675 (5th Cir. 2007). The Court is not bound to accept factual
assumptions or legal conclusions as true, and only a complaint that states a plausible claim for
relief survives a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678- 79. When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, the court assumes their veracity and then determines whether they plausibly give rise
to an entitlement to relief. Id.
III. 	ANALYSIS
Trinity asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' negligence, negligent entrustment, breach of
contract, and breach of warranty causes of action, arguing that each of these claims is preempted
by the Carmack Amendment. (Doc. No. 14 at 4).
The Carmack Amendment represents Congress' intent to create a national scheme to
govern interstate carriers' liability for property loss. See New York, N. H & H R. Co. v. Nothnagle,
346 U.S. 128 , 131 (1953); 49 U.S.C.A. § 14706. The Carmack Amendment "provide[s] the
exclusive cause of action for loss or damages to goods arising from the interstate transportation of
those goods by a common carrier." Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines, 343 F.3d 769, 778 (5th Cir. 2003).
"[T]he Carmack Amendment preempts any common law remedy that increases ... liability
beyond the actual loss or injury to the property, unless the shipper alleges injuries separate and
apart from those resulting directly from the loss of shipped property." Morris v. Cavan World Wide
Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 382 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation omitted). It is well-established
3
Case 4:25-cv-04717 Document 29 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

in this circuit that state law claims such as negligence, breach of contract, and breach of express
and implied warranty seeking damages for losses arising out of the interstate shipment of goods
by a carrier under a bill of lading are preempted by the Carmack Amendment. Moffit v. Bekins Van
Lines Co., 6 F.3d 305, 307 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims brought in Texas state court for
breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, negligence and gross
negligence, inter alia, were preempted by the Carmack Amendment); Hoskins , 343 F.3d at 777.
Here, Plaintiffs state law remedies do not allege injuries separate and apart from those
resulting directly from the loss of the shipped property. As to the negligence claim, Plaintiff claims
Trinity's failure to properly handle and ship the Boom Tip Assembly resulted in its damage and
the resulting repair costs. (Doc. No. 11 at 3-4). Regarding the negligent entrustment claim, Plaintiff
alleges that Trinity knew or should have known that MD Global was not competent to transport
the Boom Tip Assembly, and that its negligence caused damage to the Boom Tip Assembly. (Id. at
4). As to the breach of contract claim, Plaintiffs seek damages for the failure to ensure the Boom
Tip Assembly was in the same condition when it was initially loaded. (Id. at 5). Finally, Plaintiffs
seek identical damages for the damage to the Boom Tip Assembly under its breach of express and
implied warranty claim. (Id. at 5). All of Plaintiff's alleged damages stem from the damage to the
Boom Tip Assembly and the resulting cost of repair. (Doc. No. 11 at 2, 6-7). Accordingly, each of
Plaintiff's state law claims, which are attempting to increase liability "beyond the actual loss or
injury to the property," are preempted by the Carmack Amendment. Morris, 144 F.3d at 382.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Trinity's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's claims against Trinity for negligence (Count 1), negligent entrustment (Count 2), breach
4
Case 4:25-cv-04717 Document 29 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

of contract (Count 3), and breach of warranty (express and implied) (Count 4) are DISMISSED
with prejudice.
It is so ordered.
,)(--
Signed on this the _:{_ day of April, 2026.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
5
Case 4:25-cv-04717 Document 29 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5