CSX Transportation said it was considering its options after a U.S. appeals court refused to restart its lawsuit against competitor Norfolk Southern over access to a key Virginia container port, causing it hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
The allegations fell outside the four-year window for filing claims under U.S. antitrust law, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia decided on Thursday.
A lower judge in 2023 ruled against CSX and the Richmond court’s decision upholds that ruling in the case involving Norfolk International Terminals at the Port of Virginia.
“CSX is evaluating all options as we remain committed to gaining competitive access at NIT, the Virginia Port Authority’s largest marine terminal, so that we can best serve our customers,” the company said in an email statement to FreightWaves.
Norfolk Southern provides on-dock service on its owned tracks to NIT, which has an annual capacity of 3.6 million twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEUs, the standard measure of container capacity.
CSX in 2018 sued claiming Norfolk Southern had conspired with Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Co. to set an excessive “switch rate” for on-dock access, Reuters reported.
The claims dated to 2009 and the appeals court said the lawsuit filed against NS and Norfolk & Portsmouth years later was “untimely.”
But CSX asserted that it had endured “accumulating harm” from the daily switch rate over years, extending the statute of limitation clock. CSX also claimed that the lower court ruling in effect created an “immunity shield” that would block future lawsuits.
The appeals court decided that the allegedly unlawful switch rate in place for years inflicted no “new harm causing new injury” to CSX within the limitations period.
“We are pleased with the decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and we are hopeful that this unnecessary litigation is now ended,” said an NS spokesperson in an email.
The case is CSX Transportation v Norfolk Southern Railway et al, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-1537.
— This article originally appeared at FreightWaves.com.
