In the complex world of logistics and transportation, disputes over unpaid freight charges frequently lead to litigation involving carriers, brokers, and shippers. A recurrent theme in these cases is the issue of double payment, where shippers are held liable for freight charges, even after they have already paid a broker or intermediary who failed to remit payment to the carrier. Below are several key legal precedents that have shaped the framework for double payment liability in the freight and shipping industry:

1. Southern Freight v. LG Elec., U.S.A., Inc.: In this case (No. 05-A-13469-3, 2005-2007 Fed. Carr. Cases), the court upheld the principle that a secondary carrier could independently seek recovery from the shipper based on the presumption of shipper liability, even when intermediaries were involved.
2. Ranger Transportation v. Wal-Mart Stores: The 8th Circuit (903 F.2d 1185, 1990) ruled that Wal-Mart was liable to pay Ranger after it continued to pay a third party, despite being notified not to do so because the third party was not paying Ranger. The court held Wal-Mart liable for the payments made to Ranger's third party, leading to a double payment situation.
3. Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co.: This 9th Circuit decision (513 F.3d 949, 2008) emphasized that a broker-carrier agreement did not absolve the shipper of liability under the bill of lading. The shipper remained responsible for payment even if the broker had explicitly agreed to assume the liability for freight charges.
4. Harms Farms Trucking v. Woodland Container: In this case (2006 WL 3483920, D. Neb. 2006), the court held the consignee, Kawasaki, liable for the remaining balance of freight charges, even though Kawasaki had already paid $27,000 to the shipper.
5. Excel Transportation Services, Inc. v. CSX Lines, LLC: The court in this Texas case (280 F.2d 617, 619, S.D. Tex. 2003) held that when a shipper paid a forwarder, but the forwarder failed to pay the carrier, the shipper remained liable for the unpaid charges, as none of the legal exceptions absolved its liability.
6. Spedag Americas, Inc. v. Peters Hospitality and Entertainment Group LLC: In this case (2008 WL 3889551, SD Fla. 2008), the court granted summary judgment in favor of Spedag, holding both consignees liable for freight charges even though they had already paid the broker. The ruling reinforced the principle of double payment liability when intermediaries fail to pay the carrier.
7. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Center Plains Industries, Inc.: The 5th Circuit (720 F.2d 818, 1983) clarified that payment responsibility for freight charges originally rests with the shipper, although it may shift to a consignee. However, this shift must be explicitly established by agreement.
8. Strachan Shipping Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc.: This 5th Circuit case (701 F.2d 483, 1983) held that marking a bill of lading as "prepaid" did not relieve a shipper of liability unless the carrier released the shipper. Failure to prove such a release resulted in double payment.
9. Contship Container Lines, Inc. v. Howard Industries, Inc.: The 6th Circuit (309 F.3d 910, 2002) held that the shipper could be liable for freight charges even if it had already paid a broker. The court noted that naming the broker on the bill of lading does not absolve the shipper from liability to the carrier.
10. Hawkspere Shipping Company, Ltd. v. Intamex, S.A.: In this case (330 F.3d 225, 4th Cir. 2003), the court reaffirmed that the shipper is responsible for payment to the motor carrier if the freight intermediary fails to make payment.
11. National Shipping Co. Of Saudi Arabia v. Omni Lines: The 11th Circuit (106 F.3d 1544, 1997) reiterated that shippers are contractually bound to pay the carrier under the bill of lading, even if they have already paid an intermediary, unless precautions were taken to ensure payment.
12. Central States Trucking Co. v. J.R. Simplot Co.: The 7th Circuit (965 F.2d 431, 1992) held that a member of a shippers’ association was liable for freight charges where the association became insolvent before paying the carrier. The court rejected the shipper’s estoppel argument.
13. LLR Logistics LLC v. K & R Transp. Logistics, Inc.: The court (2010 WL 4116903, C.D. Cal.) held that consignees are liable for freight charges even if they had already paid a broker, as the bill of lading was not marked prepaid.
14. Direct Coast to Coast LLC v. Empire Foods Inc.: The New Jersey court (No. L-4336-15, 2018) held that using a broker to tender payment does not prevent a carrier from collecting full payment from the shipper.
15. Thunderbird Moto Freight Lines Inc v. Seaman Timber Co.: The 11th Circuit (734 F.2d 630, 1984) confirmed that failure to mark the nonrecourse clause on a bill of lading makes a shipper liable for double payment.

These cases highlight the legal intricacies surrounding double payment liabilities in freight transportation. Despite efforts by shippers to protect themselves by using brokers or forwarders, courts frequently place the ultimate liability for freight charges on the shipper, leaving them at risk for double payments if intermediaries fail to pay carriers. Legal precautions, such as securing clear agreements and vetting intermediaries, are essential to avoid such outcomes.