Claim Process Discussion

Good post Freight Broker, as it illustrates that unfortunately, not all carriers are as professional and knowledgeable as Michael and many others on this site when it comes to claims resolution. Regrettably, there are still quite a few who adopt the “ignore and hope it goes away” approach. It is the actions of these few that create most of the headaches betwee carriers, brokers and shippers during claims settlement. The professional carriers realize that moving millions of pounds of freight every year, sometimes bad things happen and look upon claims as a manageable risk inherent to this industry.
 
loaders said:
Good post Freight Broker, as it illustrates that unfortunately, not all carriers are as professional and knowledgeable as Michael and many others on this site when it comes to claims resolution. Regrettably, there are still quite a few who adopt the “ignore and hope it goes away” approach. It is the actions of these few that create most of the headaches betwee carriers, brokers and shippers during claims settlement. The professional carriers realize that moving millions of pounds of freight every year, sometimes bad things happen and look upon claims as a manageable risk inherent to this industry.
Click to expand...


You all raised valid points and it's really helpful to see that other Brokers are struggling with this issue as well. but it's not only carrier who are unfair it's also shippers. when we tell them to use the Travel-Agent analogy - you will never hold a Travel Agent liable for something that happened to you with the Air carrier - i get the following response:

#1 you guys chose the carrier so it's your fault.
#2 with a travel agent they have to pay in advance where is with a freight broker they have leverage by deducting the freight invoice.

As you said, the difference between the "real" and the "rule". what a great line i'll post it in my office

our Credit Application has the following paragraph:

Company understands that ???? is a transportation broker only who arranges the transportation of freight by an independent third party motor carrier. Company agrees that ???? will not fill out bills of lading and cannot be listed on bills of lading as the delivering carrier

In the event of cargo loss or damage, Company must file a claim for the loss with ???? within 60 days from the date of such loss, shortage or damage, which for purposes of this Agreement shall be the delivery date or, in the event of non‐delivery, the scheduled delivery date. Company agrees to assist ???? in the pursuit of a claim, including confirming the validity of the claim and claim amount. In turn, ????, will file the claim with the delivering transport carrier – on behalf of the company ‐ and do our utmost to have the transport carrier reimbursed the company.


problems is, no one really reads it or understands it but more then then that. when push comes to shove there is a difference between the "rule" and the "real".

Such text may help us in a curt of law but wont help us in the real world if we are trying to keep our client happy. It's crazy and sad.

Moreover. there are a host of shippers who will write our name on the BOL as the carrier, simply because they don't know whom else to put or because they don't care. as much as i try to eliminate that, it's till there.

Well, should that make us liable? no! should that help us have greater power with the actual carriers insurance company? i hope so,...

It's my experience with Insurance brokers that they are not helpful at all, unless if the Carrier admits liability otherwise they tell us we have no obligations to you whatsoever and we remain powerless to help our customer which forces to make a business decision if we want to live by the real or by the rule....

I now have a claim of a FTL, from ON to the States. BOL is signed with skid count, no seal (seal was put on by the carrier after they had left the shipper) POD is signed short

we are listed as the carrier on the BOL (Don't ask me why)

Shipper is claiming for the cargo and Carrier is saying their drives never counts skids, supposedly this is their policy (they had never told us that), it's a popular carrier which all you know. In their words: "we are a 'shipper load and count' carrier". in addition, they never cross-dock they pickup and deliver.

They are totally ignoring our claim and now the shipper is after us, asking us how else we would want them to recover their loss. when suggested they goes to small claims court in ON, they said well, if we claim in court it will be against the carrier AND the broker. so it will cost you legal fees.

we are talking but a long-lasting solid loyal customer. which are telling me in my face (in my ear actually) they will deduct payments from fright invoices)

I can give countless such examples. but i hope someone can shed light on this scenario. What's my best way out of it?

Gotta go for now
 
You should get yourself a contingency cargo policy. Your insurer settles the claim and subrogates against the carriers insurer. Get yourself some professional help with these matters before it gets uncontrollably expensive.
 
have had a few damage claims with Polaris through the years , they always followed through and were more than fair to deal with
 
@frtbrkr ... in this specific situation, it doesn't look like there is any polite way out. However, to give your insurance company and your legal advisors a fighting chance, ask your customer not to deduct from invoices but to bill you separately. If they truly are a loyal customer, they will understand. You can pay it out, then let legal take care of the rest.
As for your relationship with the carrier ... do you really care? If they're not going to stand up to their end of the contract (the bill of lading), then why would you want to continue doing business with them? If that's the case, don't be shy about telling the rest of the brokers here either. Pretty certain they wouldn't want to do business with that carrier either.
As for the proverbial "SL&C" ... There is nothing in any regulation that says a carrier can do that. The only place where it really counts is in court, and then the only way it really matters is if ...
1) The shipper physically seals the trailer.
2) Both the shipper and the driver initial the SL&C notation on the BOL.
You can't just "say" you're an SL&C carrier ... you have to follow convention. In your case above, how does anyone know product wasn't stolen between the dock door and the trailer seal?

To protect yourself in the future, loaders is 10,000% right ... get yourself a contingent cargo (CC) policy. Yes, it's going to cost you. Probably enough that it will have an effect on your bottom line. You'll just have to account for that in your pricing.
A big advantage to a CC policy is that it shows your customers that you care about their financial well being by protecting their cargo no matter what happens. An enormous advantage to a CC policy is that the insurance company does all of the dirty work. You just give them all the load's paperwork and the insurance certificate you got from the carrier. The only thing you have to say to anyone in the event of a claim is "I passed it on to the insurance company. They are dealing with it.", and your hands are relatively clean. Anything that goes sideways, just blame the insurance company :) I would almost expect an insurance broker to sell it to you that way.
And, speaking of insurance brokers ... when you are dealing with a claim, you want to be speaking directly with the insurance company's claims adjuster, not the broker. There are very, very, very few brokers that actually know how to deal with a cargo claim. Unless you have an excellent transportation broker in the first place, all most brokers do is regurgitate what the claims adjuster tells them anyways.

FWIW ... I have an excellent broker, and I sure in-as-hell would not want to be on her shit list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Igor Galanter and Freight Broker
I agree.. broker must have contingent cargo.. some shippers require that their brokers have it as well. Most of mine require it..
 
Mike and Freight Broker,
It's hard to argue your logic and extensive detail above. You both know your stuff!

We find the same issue we have as freight forwarders or brokers is that the shipper/consignee/claimant (in their minds) hold us accountable as we selected the carrier that froze the bananas. In the end all of the forms/language used (from me in the claims process) identifies that the claimant is putting forth a claim against the carrier, we are simply relaying the information/documentation to each party. We never make assumptions about packaging, brakes being applied, etc. and we allow each party to perform a proper investigation. In the end the truth of the matter usually comes out. Relaying claim information to a carrier on behalf of a claimant is part of our service, paying a claimant on behalf of a carrier where the claim is straightforward but the carrier would like some time to conduct a full review is part of our service to the carrier.

In the end, all claims cost everyone is time and money, and sometimes way too much of both. Package your freight in a manner that it will safely travel on a truck, driver safely, crossdock carefully and for God sake, write something on the BOL when there is an issue!!

Keep well, happy Friday!
Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freight Broker
"... and for God sake, write something on the BOL when there is an issue!!"

OMFG, never were more truer words spoken !!!
And, if I might add ... everyone has a cell phone ... take pictures, pictures, pictures ... lots, and lots, and lots of them.

For you younger and/or newer brokers out there, take a page from MikeJr's playbook. Make claims mitigation a part of your repertoire ... you can sell it as a value-added service :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freight Broker
Mike,
No word of a lie:
Consignee: "My stuff has arrived frozen, this was a heated service load, truck is backing up to the door now"
Sales VP: "This was booked with the carrier as heated service and the requirement is all over your BOL and customs invoice in clear language, please be sure to write on the BOL that heat was neglected and the goods are frozen"
Consignee: "Ok, will do"
...
2 hours later, we receive the BOL - free and clear.
Sales VP: "why didn't you write anything on the BOL?"
Consignee: "we were really busy, lots going on over here, the goods are worth $20k USD, we'll let you know if it passes QC or not."
It gets worse: the shipper has a policy of checking for heater/reefers when loading heated service shipments, seems it was overlooked for this one truck, it was a dry van.

Good times and something new every day,
Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freight Broker
Yup.. speaking of something new.. I have one this morning. Not a claim yet but its looking like its going to go that way. Would love your input.. My customer shipped 7 pieces (doesn't matter what they are).. 6 arrived at destination. One piece appears to be lost. Carrier (Fedex Freight) says no problem.. if we can't find the 7th pc. then put a claim in for it. All that is fine but for two points: Number 1.. receiver needed 7 pcs... 6 pcs. are of no use to him.. (its like receiving a table that has only three legs.. without that 4th leg the table is pretty much useless). and Number 2) if carrier reimburses me/shipper for the cost of the missing pc. would I include the cost of shipping the replacement piece to him in my claim? The missing pc itself isn't very expensive.. the cost of the shipping, however, (Huntington, WV to Fort Nelson, BC) is..
 
Freight Broker said:
Yup.. speaking of something new.. I have one this morning. Not a claim yet but its looking like its going to go that way. Would love your input.. My customer shipped 7 pieces (doesn't matter what they are).. 6 arrived at destination. One piece appears to be lost. Carrier (Fedex Freight) says no problem.. if we can't find the 7th pc. then put a claim in for it. All that is fine but for two points: Number 1.. receiver needed 7 pcs... 6 pcs. are of no use to him.. (its like receiving a table that has only three legs.. without that 4th leg the table is pretty much useless). and Number 2) if carrier reimburses me/shipper for the cost of the missing pc. would I include the cost of shipping the replacement piece to him in my claim? The missing pc itself isn't very expensive.. the cost of the shipping, however, (Huntington, WV to Fort Nelson, BC) is..
Click to expand...
Yes to the cost of shipping. You have to give the originating carrier the option of doing the move though. If it's cheaper to courier it you need to get the carrier to agree to it before hand. This is also assuming you pay the original freight invoice in full.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freight Broker
Costs of shipping is a cost of the loss. So is packaging, customs clearance (not the duty, the cost of handling the clearance).

Keep well,
Mike
 
frtbrkr said:
Hi Micheal.

how in thee= world can we explain this to our customers?

they don't want to understand the complexity of the law, they see us as their Freight provider and even blaming us for selecting the carrier (readdress how much due diligent we had done) and they want us to swallow the loss or sue the carrier, which legally we cant.

As much as we explain them our role as an intermediary, it doesn't go anywhere. they feel they have no choice. they have freight invoices deduct whatever they need to and let us deal with the carrier.

we have three claims now, in which in all of them the customers seems to be right and the carrier wrong. but the carrier is either ignoring or replying with flawed arguments and we have no power to change their behaviors. of course we paid the freight invoices (like we "always" do) and the customer is deducting. the legal route is for us to send our customers account for collections (meaning loosing the customers) or for the customer to sue the carrier (and us) in court (which mean loosing the customers)

what's the practical way out of it?

on that note, our experience with Polaris is excellent on every level. On claims, they always reply and are very professional. not always how we or our customer would like... but they are at least communicating and with reason.

it's a great company.
Click to expand...



Either buy yourself an inland marine policy which allows claims to be paid on a full settlement basis or find their insurer and submit a claim directly to the company.
 
Inland Marine Policy ... I'll bet that term gives a lot of truck operators that "deer-in-the-headlights" look ... LOL.
An option that had totally slipped my mind. Probably because of the cost. I think the last time I priced one, a few years ago now, they were pretty expensive versus a cargo policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom