Carmack Amendment: Cargo Claim Deadlines and Limits

Updated 2026-09-01

The Carmack Amendment — codified for motor carriers at 49 U.S.C. 14706 — is the federal rule that makes the carrier who receives an interstate shipment liable for “the actual loss or injury to the property,” and that sets the minimum time a claimant must be given to file a claim and to sue.

Of the ten pages Bing ranked for “carmack amendment” on 2026-09-01, five were law firms or defence-counsel bodies, and the top result was the statute itself. freightclaims.com is in that ten, and its page on claim timelines is the exception worth naming: it sets out all five timeframes, and it says the two-year window runs “from the date of that denial” rather than from delivery. What no page we checked does is set out all five and name the section each one comes from. That is what you need at 4 p.m. on the day a claim lands, along with who owes what to whom and an honest answer to whether any of it reaches you.

The four clocks

Each row is a separate obligation with its own source. Nothing here is a rule of thumb.

Clock	Who owes it	How long	Source
File the claim	Claimant, to the carrier	A carrier “may not provide by rule, contract, or otherwise, a period of less than 9 months for filing a claim”	49 U.S.C. 14706(e)(1)
Acknowledge the claim	Carrier, to the claimant	In writing “within 30 days after the date of its receipt by the carrier,” unless the carrier “shall have paid or declined such claim in writing within 30 days”	49 CFR 370.5(a)
Dispose of the claim	Carrier, to the claimant	“pay, decline, or make a firm compromise settlement offer in writing… within 120 days after receipt of the claim”; if it cannot, written status “at that time and at the expiration of each succeeding 60-day period”	49 CFR 370.9(a)
Sue	Claimant, in court	A carrier may not provide “a period of less than 2 years for bringing a civil action,” computed “from the date the carrier gives a person written notice that the carrier has disallowed any part of the claim”	49 U.S.C. 14706(e)(1)

Read the first and last rows carefully: 9 months and 2 years are floors, not deadlines. The statute forbids a carrier from shortening the window below them. Your bill of lading or your contract may allow longer. The number a rep should diary is whatever the governing document says, and the statutory minimum is only the backstop when it says nothing or says something shorter.

The suit clock does not start at delivery. It runs from the carrier’s written disallowance. And 14706(e)(2) narrows what counts as one: “an offer of compromise shall not constitute a disallowance of any part of the claim unless the carrier, in writing, informs the claimant that such part of the claim is disallowed and provides reasons for such disallowance.” The same paragraph says a communication from the carrier’s insurer is not a disallowance unless the insurer puts it in writing with reasons and states that it is acting on behalf of the carrier. A phone call declining the claim starts nothing.

What actually counts as filing a claim

The regulation is specific about what counts, and specific about two things that do not. 49 CFR 370.3(b) sets the minimum: “A written communication from a claimant, filed with a proper carrier within the time limits specified in the bill of lading or contract of carriage or transportation and:”

“Containing facts sufficient to identify the baggage or shipment (or shipments) of property,”
“Asserting liability for alleged loss, damage, injury, or delay, and”
“Making claim for the payment of a specified or determinable amount of money,”

“shall be considered as sufficient compliance,” subject to a proviso that “procedures are established to ensure reasonable carrier access to supporting documents.”

Two things that are not a claim, straight from the same section:

A note on the paperwork. 370.3(c) is blunt: “Bad order reports, appraisal reports of damage, notations of shortage or damage, or both, on freight bills, delivery receipts, or other documents, or inspection reports issued by carriers or their inspection agencies… shall, standing alone, not be considered by carriers as sufficient to comply with the minimum claim filing requirements.” The receiver writing “2 pallets short, crushed” on the delivery receipt has created evidence, not a claim. If everyone assumes that notation started the clock, nobody files.
A number nobody can pin down. 370.3(d) covers claims “for an uncertain amount, such as ‘$100 more or less’.” The carrier must investigate, but it “shall not… voluntarily pay a claim under such circumstances unless and until a formal claim in writing for a specified or determinable amount of money shall have been filed.”

Element 3 is the one to check before you send anything. “We’ll figure out the damages later” is not a claim under this rule.

Does any of this reach a broker?

Straight answer, from the definitions rather than from anyone’s opinion:

49 U.S.C. 14706(a)(1) imposes the liability on a carrier.
49 U.S.C. 13102(3) defines “carrier” as “a motor carrier, a water carrier, and a freight forwarder.”
13102(2) defines a “broker” as “a person, other than a motor carrier or an employee or agent of a motor carrier, that as a principal or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out… as selling, providing, or arranging for, transportation by motor carrier for compensation.”
The claims regulations reach a narrower set. 49 CFR 370.1 applies part 370 to claims against “each motor carrier and freight forwarder (hereinafter called carrier).”
Freight forwarders are inside, explicitly: 14706(a)(2) states “A freight forwarder is both the receiving and delivering carrier.”

Two different lists, then, and neither contains a broker. The statute’s “carrier” is three parties; part 370’s is two. They stopped matching on 2026-03-23, when FMCSA’s “Removal of Obsolete References to ‘Water Carriers’” (91 FR 7856, published 2026-02-19) struck ”, water carrier,” from 370.1. The agency’s stated reason is that it “does not specifically regulate water carriers except to the extent that such carriers also engage in motor carrier operations.” If you want a recent, dated statement from the regulator about who part 370 reaches, that rule is it — and it is worth knowing that a page quoting the three-party version of 370.1 is quoting law that expired in March.

That is where this page stops, and the stopping point is deliberate. What a broker owes on a claim is decided somewhere else entirely — by the broker–carrier agreement, by the terms in your customer contract, and by theories that live in case law rather than in either document. A broker who reads the paragraph above and concludes they are categorically safe has read it wrong. The definition says so itself: 13102(2) defines a broker as a person “other than a motor carrier or an employee or agent of a motor carrier.” The exclusion is written into the term. And the exclusion has a definition of its own: under 13102(14) a “motor carrier” is “a person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation.” So a company that is providing the transportation is a motor carrier, and a motor carrier is not a broker under 13102(2), whatever its paperwork says. What these two definitions do not settle is which one a company holding both authorities is on a particular load — that question is real, it is argued from case law rather than from either definition, and this page does not answer it. Go and read what your own agreements say about cargo liability, indemnity, and insurance, because those are the documents that will decide it. This page is a description of two federal texts, not legal advice, and the question of broker exposure genuinely needs a lawyer looking at your paperwork.

One thing worth separating while you are here: a claim against a broker’s surety bond is a different mechanism with a different source, and it is covered on the BMC-84 vs BMC-85 page. A bond claim is about unpaid freight charges, not damaged cargo. The two are easy to conflate, and conflating them sends a claim to the wrong place.

How far liability can be limited

The starting point is full actual loss: 14706(a)(1) makes the liable carriers answerable for “the actual loss or injury to the property.”

That can be limited, and the statute says how. Under 14706(c)(1)(A), a carrier may “establish rates for the transportation of property… under which the liability of the carrier for such property is limited to a value established by written or electronic declaration of the shipper or by written agreement between the carrier and shipper if that value would be reasonable under the circumstances surrounding the transportation.”

Read what that requires: a rate tied to the limitation, a value established by the shipper’s written or electronic declaration or by written agreement, and a value reasonable under the circumstances. It is a mechanism with conditions, not a line a carrier can drop into a tariff unilaterally and be done.

No dollar figure appears on this page, and that is on purpose. Released-value limits are tariff- and contract-specific — the per-pound numbers that circulate in blog posts come from particular LTL tariffs and are not a standard. The number that governs your load is in your carrier’s tariff or in the agreement you signed. Look it up there; anyone quoting you a general figure is quoting someone else’s contract.

The claim file, in the order it happens

Exception noted at delivery. The signed bill of lading is where condition is first recorded. Signing clean for a damaged load is what makes every step after it harder.
Written claim filed with a proper carrier, containing all three elements from 370.3(b).
Acknowledgement within 30 days, which under 370.5(a) must also “indicate… what, if any, additional documentary evidence or other pertinent information may be required” to process it. That letter is a to-do list — treat it as one.
Investigation. 370.7(b) contemplates the claim being supported by “the bill of lading, evidence of the freight charges, if any, and either the invoice, a copy of the invoice, or an exact copy thereof.” And where a claim for the loss of an entire package or an entire shipment “cannot be otherwise authenticated upon investigation,” 370.7(c) says the carrier “shall obtain” a certified written statement from the consignee that the property “has not been received from any other source.” That is a duty on the carrier, not an option, and it is conditional — expect the request when the file cannot be squared any other way, not as routine paperwork on every whole-shipment loss.
Disposition within 120 days — paid, declined, or a firm written compromise offer — or written status every 60 days after that, with “the reason for the delay.”
Written disallowance, if it comes. That is what starts the suit clock.

The documents in step 4 are the ones brokers scramble for, which is an argument for your rate confirmation defining a complete invoice packet that already contains most of them.

Where cargo claims go wrong on a broker’s desk

Everyone treated the delivery-receipt notation as the claim. 370.3(c) says it is not. Months pass, the filing window in the governing document closes, and there was never a claim.

The claim was filed for “approximately” an amount. 370.3(d) lets the carrier hold payment until a specified or determinable amount arrives in writing.

The 30-day acknowledgement asked for documents and nobody read it. The claim then sits, and at 120 days the carrier is compliant by sending a status letter while the file goes nowhere.

A verbal “we’re denying it” was treated as a denial. Under 14706(e)(2) it is not, and the two-year suit clock has not started — which cuts both ways, because a broker relying on a phone call to tell a customer the matter is closed is relying on nothing.

Nobody checked which document sets the filing period. The statute’s 9 months is a floor. The bill of lading or contract may give longer, and a rep who diaries 9 months by reflex can surrender time the paperwork actually gave them.

FAQ

Are freight brokers liable for cargo claims? Not under the text of the Carmack Amendment itself. 49 U.S.C. 14706 imposes liability on a “carrier,” 49 U.S.C. 13102(3) defines that as “a motor carrier, a water carrier, and a freight forwarder,” and 13102(2) defines a broker as a person “other than a motor carrier.” 49 CFR 370.1 reaches a narrower set still — “each motor carrier and freight forwarder” — and a broker is in neither list. But that is a statement about two federal texts and nothing more: a broker’s exposure on a cargo claim is normally argued from the broker–carrier agreement, the customer contract, and theories that live in case law. Read your own agreements, and get a lawyer to read them with you — do not take a definitional argument as protection.

How long does a carrier have to respond to a freight claim? Two separate duties. Acknowledgement is 30 days in writing under 49 CFR 370.5(a), unless the carrier has already paid or declined in writing within those 30 days. Disposition is 120 days under 49 CFR 370.9(a) — pay, decline, or a firm written compromise offer. If it misses 120 days it does not lose; it owes you a written status and the reason for the delay then and every 60 days after, until the claim is disposed of.

Is a note on the delivery receipt enough to file a claim? No. 49 CFR 370.3(c) says bad order reports, notations of shortage or damage on freight bills or delivery receipts, and carrier inspection reports “shall, standing alone, not be considered by carriers as sufficient to comply with the minimum claim filing requirements.” Note the exception at delivery anyway — it is the evidence — then file a separate written claim carrying the three elements in 370.3(b).

How much is the carrier liable for? The default is actual loss: 14706(a)(1) makes the liable carriers answerable for “the actual loss or injury to the property.” That default can be replaced by a released-value limitation, but only through the mechanism in 14706(c)(1)(A) — a rate under which liability is limited to a value “established by written or electronic declaration of the shipper or by written agreement between the carrier and shipper,” and only if that value “would be reasonable under the circumstances surrounding the transportation.” There is no general per-pound number to quote; the figure that applies to your load lives in the tariff or agreement that governs it.