No. 02-1028 In the Supreme Court of the United States NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER v. JAMES N. KIRBY, PTY LTD., DBA KIRBY ENGINEERING, AND ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA LIMITED ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER PAUL D. CLEMENT Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. This Court should apply federal law in construing the ICC/Kirby bill of lading .................................................. 2 A. By litigating this question as one of federal law in the courts below, respondents waived any argument that a different body of law applies ............................................................................... 2 B. Even if the choice-of-law issue had been con- tested below, federal law would govern the interpretation of the ICC/Kirby bill of lading ........... 5 II. The question whether the Shipping Act preempts a state-law damages award in excess of the limit specified in the Hamburg Sud/ICC bill of lading is a question of federal law .......................................................... 8 Appendix ......................................................................................... 1a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: AT&T Co. v. Central Office Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) ........................................................................................ 9 Albany Ins. Co. v. Anh Thi Kieu, 927 F.2d 882 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 US. 901 (1991) ....................... 5 American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 (1994) ........................................................................................ 5, 7 American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 330 U.S. 446 (1947) ........................................................................................ 7 Armour & Co. v. Fort Morgan S.S. Co., 270 U.S. 253 (1926) ........................................................................................ 5 Borden v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1991) ......................................................................... 4 Cincinnati, New Orleans & Tex. Pac. Ry. v. Rankin, 241 U.S. 319 (1916) ............................................... 7 Colgate Palmolive Co. v. S/S Dart Canada, 724 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 963 (1984) ........................................................................................ 6 (I) II Cases—Continued: Page East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986) ...................................................... 3 Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) ...................................... 9 Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) ........................................................................................ 8 Hale Container Line, Inc. v. Houston Sea Packing Co., 137 F.3d 1455 (11th Cir. 1998) .................................... 3 Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) ........................................................................................ 10 Kuehne & Nagel v. Geosource, Inc., 874 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1989) ......................................................................... 7 New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) ................ 2 Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207 (1986) ........................................................................................ 5 O’Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994) ............ 6 Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406 (1953) ........... 5 Renick v. O.P.T.I.O.N. Care, Inc., 77 F.3d 309 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 865 (1996) ...................... 4 Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill Mach. Corp., 359 U.S. 297 (1959) ................................................................ 3, 6 Santalucia v. Sebright Transp., Inc., 232 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 4 Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Danzig, 211 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................................................... 7 Southern Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917) ............ 5 Southern Ry. v. Prescott, 240 U.S. 632 (1916) .................. 9 Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (2002) ........................................................................................ 4 Texaco A/S (Denmark) v. Commercial Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 1998) ................................................... 4 Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448 (1957) ........................................................................................ 7 Twohy v. First Nat’l Bank, 758 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1985) ......................................................................................... 4 III Cases—Continued: Page Wallis v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 384 U.S. 63 (1966) ........................................................................................ 6-7 Wemhoener Pressen v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc., 5 F.3d 734 (4th Cir. 1993) ........................................... 6 Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310 (1955) ................................................................ 5 Statutes, regulation and rule: Bills of Lading Act, 49 U.S.C. 80101 et seq. ......................... 7 Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. App. 1701 et seq. ............... 8, 1a 46 U.S.C. App. 1707(a)(1) ..................................................... 8, 3a 46 U.S.C. App. 1707(a)(1)(E) ......................................... 8, 9, 4a 46 U.S.C. App. 1709 ............................................................... 9, 4a 28 U.S.C. 1331 ............................................................................ 9 29 U.S.C. 185(a) ......................................................................... 7 46 C.F.R. Pt. 520 ....................................................................... 8 Sup. Ct. R. 15.2 .......................................................................... 2 Miscellaneous: Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws (Supp. 1988) ....... 4 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-1028 NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER v. JAMES N. KIRBY, PTY LTD., DBA KIRBY ENGINEERING, AND ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA LIMITED ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER This brief is submitted in response to the Court’s order of September 24, 2004, which invited the Acting Solicitor Gen- eral to file a brief on behalf of the United States to address the following question: “Does federal or state substantive law govern the questions presented?” For the reasons set forth below, the position of the United States is that the questions presented by this case are issues of federal law. As a threshold matter, however, we submit that the Court need not definitively resolve whether federal or state law generally would apply to questions of this type. As we explained in our brief at the petition stage (at 12-13), the parties litigated this case in the courts below on the clear (albeit implicit) premise that federal maritime law applies, and the court of appeals decided the case on that premise. Having prevailed on that theory below, respondents are in no position to deny the federal nature of the questions (1) 2 presented. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-750 (2001). The question whether federal law governs this case was raised at the petition stage by the United States (but not by respondents in their brief in opposition, see Sup. Ct. R. 15.2), and we stated that “this Court may rely on the parties’ joint position and address the federal-law questions decided by the Eleventh Circuit and presented in the petition.” U.S. Br. (Pet. Stage) 13. The Court chose to grant certiorari, and it should now proceed to decide the case in reliance on the parties’ position that federal law governs. I. THIS COURT SHOULD APPLY FEDERAL LAW IN CONSTRUING THE ICC/KIRBY BILL OF LADING The court of appeals held that respondents’ entitlement to damages was unaffected by the ICC/Kirby bill of lading because petitioner was not in privity of contract with ICC and is an inland rather than a maritime carrier. The correct- ness of that holding depends solely on the interpretation of the Himalaya Clause of the ICC/Kirby bill. For two reasons, this Court should apply federal law in construing that provision. A. By Litigating This Question As One Of Federal Law In The Courts Below, Respondents Waived Any Argument That A Different Body Of Law Applies 1. In their supplemental brief at the petition stage of this case, respondents argued (at 1 n.1) that “Australian law un- doubtedly governs the interpretation of the ICC[/Kirby] bill of lading.” Respondents’ conduct below, however, evinces a clear understanding that federal law would govern the interpretation of the ICC/Kirby bill’s Himalaya Clause. Thus, in their Joint Motion requesting that the district court certify its partial summary judgment order for immediate appellate review, the parties explained (at 6) that a “sub- stantial ground for a difference of opinion” existed in light of a “well-established conflict in authority between two of the leading maritime circuits”—the Second and the Fifth— 3 “with multiple decisions over several years in each circuit, on an issue that the Eleventh Circuit