stated the procedure Circle V should follow to increase the limitation on liability. Vollmer, accordingly, was presented with an opportunity to avoid this limitation but failed to avail himself of it. Finally, Defendants’ policy of requiring the shipper to create its own bill of lading, which Defendants then adopt, does not run afoul of the fourth requirement. To the contrary, Defendants’ policy protects shippers, who then may ensure the reported values and weights are correct. A shipper like Circle V properly is held to the bill Of lading it created. Cf. American Cyanamid Co. v. New Penn Motor Express, Inc., 979 F.2d 310, 314 (3d Cir.1992). Accordingly, Defendants limited their liability effectively. Cf. Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. A-P-A Transp. Corp., 158 F.3d 617, 621 (1st Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Circle V’s remaining arguments are no more
holding shipper was bound by a limitation on liability provision where the tariff simply made greater coverage available the bill of lading gave the shipper the opportunity to elect the greater coverage and the shipper was a commercial enterprise capable of understanding the agreements it signed holding section 3877160 clearly limits the amount of coverage which may be stacked from policies on vehicles not involved in the accident to an amount no greater than the coverage of the vehicle involved in that accident holding directors and officers liability policy was property of the estate because the estate was worth more with indemnification coverage than without the coverage holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage holding that where jury was instructed on both a greater offense and lesserincluded offense and the jury convicted on the lesserincluded offense the double jeopardy provision prohibited retrial on the greater offense