A cigarette shipment valued at $534,451.78 was stolen from a carrier’s trailer, and an Alberta judge said the $2-per-pound cap didn’t close the book when insurance promises were in play.
In a decision dated December 12, 2025, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta dealt with what looks, at first glance, like a familiar cargo-loss dispute: goods stolen in transit, a bill of lading with no declared value, and a carrier pointing to the standard weight-based limit.
Calgary Core-Mark International Inc, a wholesale distributor of grocery products, had hired Direct Integrated Transportation ULC, operating as Canada Cartage, to move a shipment of cigarettes. On November 22, 2021, the trailer carrying the shipment was stolen while it was in Direct Integrated’s care and possession. The shipment weighed approximately 19,447 pounds and was valued at $534,451.78.
A bill of lading was prepared, but no value was declared on its face. The record also did not clearly indicate who prepared it, and it was not signed by either party. That missing number mattered because Alberta’s Bill of Lading and Conditions of Carriage Regulation sets a maximum liability of $4.41 per kilogram, or $2 per pound, unless a higher value is declared on the face of the bill of lading by the consignor.
Earlier in the case, an applications judge limited Core-Mark’s recovery for the stolen cigarettes to that statutory maximum, awarding $38,894. Core-Mark appealed, arguing that the bigger issue was not just the value of the lost cargo under the regulation, but a separate contractual obligation: the carrier’s promise to arrange cargo insurance for Core-Mark’s benefit, including naming Core-Mark as an additional insured.
This is where the decision lands squarely on insurance professionals’ desks. The court agreed that the statutory cap still controlled damages for the “loss or damage” to the cigarettes themselves because no value was declared, so $38,894 remained the proper figure for that part of the claim. But the court drew a line between capped damages for the goods and damages for a separate breach of contract. In plain language, the bill-of-lading regime did not limit what Core-Mark could recover for a failure to meet an insurance obligation contained in the parties’ agreement.
The court reviewed two agreements between the companies: a Transportation Agreement dated October 23, 2011 (as amended) and a separate Rate Agreement dated April 22, 2018. The evidence made it difficult to determine which applied to the load on the night of the theft, but the court concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that the Transportation Agreement governed. The court also emphasized that, in any event, both agreements required Direct Integrated to obtain at least $250,000 in cargo insurance in Core-Mark’s favour as an additional insured.
The court also looked at Direct Integrated’s cargo insurance. Direct Integrated held motor carrier cargo insurance policy number 665438071 issued by CNA Continental Casualty Company, effective from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2022. It did not name Core-Mark as an additional insured; Core-Mark was listed only as a certificate holder. The policy provided Motor Truck Cargo liability coverage up to $500,000 for alcohol and tobacco shipments per occurrence.
On the remedy, the court concluded that because the value of the goods was not declared on the bill of lading or otherwise communicated, damages for the insurance breach were limited to the contractual minimum of $250,000. The court then deducted $10,000 from the total award, and granted $278,894 ($38,894 + $250,000 – $10,000), plus pre-judgment interest.
For insurers, brokers, and risk managers, the takeaway is straightforward: if a contract calls for “additional insured” status, “certificate holder” isn’t a substitute, and the dollars at stake can be significant.
