Edwards Bros. Inc. “Edwards Bros.” appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Overdrive Logistics, Inc. “Overdrive” on its breach of contract claim. We affirm. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.1 So viewed, the evidence shows that Overdrive, a federally-licensed transportation broker, and Edwards Bros., a trucking company, were parties to a brokerage contract, in which Overdrive agreed to “tender a series of shipments to Edwards Bros. who agrees to transport the shipments by providing motor vehicles . . . designed to meet the distinct needs of Overdrive and/or its shippers.” Robinson & Harrison Poultry Company, Inc. “Robinson”, contracted with Overdrive to arrange for a load of Robinson’s processed chicken to be shipped from Georgia to California. Overdrive retained Edwards Bros. to pick up, transport, and deliver the chicken. The shipment of chicken was rejected by the consignee in California because the product was delivered above the required temperature. Bill Savage, a broker employed by Robinson, testified by affidavit that the chicken was sold to other buyers at a loss to Robinson of $21,552.97, so Robinson submitted a claim to Edwards Bros. for the loss. Edwards Bros. paid Robinson $16,876.74 for the damage to the shipment. After settling the claim, Savage learned that Edwards Bros. and Overdrive allegedly concealed the fact that the reason that the chicken was delivered above temperature to the consignee was because Edwards Bros.’ truck “broke down” en route to California. Because Robinson had not been fully compensated for its loss, it decided to withhold the balance of the loss on the chicken from its July, 2000, payment to Overdrive.
Overdrive brought an action against Edwards Bros. and Robinson, jointly and severally, seeking damages against Edwards Bros. for breach of contract, or in the alternative, pursuant to the Carmack Amendment, and against Robinson for fraud, breach of contract, open account, and bad faith. Several motions for summary judgment were filed.2 The sole issue in this appeal is the grant of summary judgment to Overdrive on its breach of contract claim against Edwards Bros., the trucking company.
