Chavis Van & Storage of Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. United Van Lines, LLC, No. 14-1749 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseUnited operates a nationwide household goods moving network with more than 400 independently owned and operated agents. Since 1993, Chavis has been a full-service United agent. The parties' relationship is governed by a 2007 Agency Agreement. Chavis filed suit for breach of contract, alleging that United breached the Agency Agreement by unilaterally changing the roles that United agents play in servicing shipments by not assigning Chavis to certain roles in the chain of interstate shipments. According to Chavis, it should have been assigned the roles of origin agent and destination agent, based on its status as the "local" or "authorized" agent in the case of non-military shipments, i.e., its status as the agent closest to the original or destination address, and based on its designation as the United agent "authorized" to service Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina for military shipments. The district court entered summary judgment for United, finding the Agreement unambiguous. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. None of the documents that Chavis identified supported its argument that it is the only "authorized" agent for its home market for non-military shipments or the exclusive agent for military shipments to and from Shaw AFB.
Court Description: Civil Case - diversity - contract. In claim for breach of contract in which Chavis Van & Storage claimed it was not assigned the role of origin agency and destination agent by United Van Lines, the grant of summary judgment to United is affirmed. The agency agreement is not ambiguous. None of documents Chavis identifies support that it is the only "authorized" agent to its home market for non-military shipments or the exclusive agent for military shipments, and thus United did not breach the agreement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel discovery.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.