A new twist on freight claim denial

loaders

loaders

Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2008
3,323
3,975
113
30
I certainly don’t want to start a heated discussion on this topic, especially on the eve of the summer’s first long weekend, but I thought I should relay this recent experience. We just had a freight claim submitted for one damaged skid on a multi skid LTL shipment from the US.. The receiver took photos, supplied us with all pertinent details, and a signed Bill of Lading with the damage clearly noted. We in turn, forwarded all of this to the carrier involved. After a quick turnaround, the carrier has denied the claim (in the amount of 75 US, by the way). Their reason for this denial is that damage must have occurred at the consignees location after unloading. One has to wonder how the damage could have been discovered without unloading at the consignees location? The customer involved here is a large multi national corporation with proper claims mitigation procedures in place and a long history of not fabricating bogus $75 freight claims. Obviously, we are not going to make a big stink over this as the amount doesn’t warrant much effort. However what burns me is their cavalier dismissal of a legitimate freight claim, almost as if they are counting on me to absorb this expense. Oh well, as I approach my 72nd birthday on Monday, this won’t be the first time, nor will it be the last, that we have made a contribution to the “cost of doing business!” Have a great long weekend everyone!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveW, AA123, MLCAR and 5 others
Happy Birthday John
A lot of large carriers have it in their tariff that they will not entertain claims under a certain dollar amount (like $250)
 
Nawk said:
Happy Birthday... Seems like your little office in with Ian was just yesterday. Time flies!
Click to expand...
Yes that was a “galaxy, far, far away”. Ian is still around, though long gone out of the industry. Unfortunately, neuropathy has put an end to his golf game.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Nawk
Michael Ludwig said:
I can only imagine what that dismissive $75.00 claim cost that carrier in the end ;)
And, happy belated birthday :)
Click to expand...
Appreciated. In this case their costs would have been approx 5 minutes of staff time to read the claim form, another 5 minutes to consult with upper management about their acceptance or denial, and another 5 minutes to draft their reply. Had they merely said, ”claims under..$XX.00 dollars will not be accepted”, I could have easily moved on to bigger and better things, which I did in the end anyways!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR
loaders said:
I certainly don’t want to start a heated discussion on this topic, especially on the eve of the summer’s first long weekend, but I thought I should relay this recent experience. We just had a freight claim submitted for one damaged skid on a multi skid LTL shipment from the US.. The receiver took photos, supplied us with all pertinent details, and a signed Bill of Lading with the damage clearly noted. We in turn, forwarded all of this to the carrier involved. After a quick turnaround, the carrier has denied the claim (in the amount of 75 US, by the way). Their reason for this denial is that damage must have occurred at the consignees location after unloading. One has to wonder how the damage could have been discovered without unloading at the consignees location? The customer involved here is a large multi national corporation with proper claims mitigation procedures in place and a long history of not fabricating bogus $75 freight claims. Obviously, we are not going to make a big stink over this as the amount doesn’t warrant much effort. However what burns me is their cavalier dismissal of a legitimate freight claim, almost as if they are counting on me to absorb this expense. Oh well, as I approach my 72nd birthday on Monday, this won’t be the first time, nor will it be the last, that we have made a contribution to the “cost of doing business!” Have a great long weekend everyone!
Click to expand...
$75 is a waste of everyone’s time. At 72 years of age why do you accept petty claims, surely your relationship with the customer allows you at least a minimum of $200 before activating the claim process. I have clients for 20 years that bury minor claims in order to stay in good graces with the carriers we use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR and tasuinam
OLD GUY said:
$75 is a waste of everyone’s time. At 72 years of age why do you accept petty claims, surely your relationship with the customer allows you at least a minimum of $200 before activating the claim process. I have clients for 20 years that bury minor claims in order to stay in good graces with the carriers we use.
Click to expand...
We were not informed of the damaged skid’s value until after the claim for freight damage had been filed. Of course, had the customer advised us of the value of the product we would have paid them ourselves, which we did, and would not have involved the carrier in this at all. The carrier in this case didn’t deny the claim because of its low monetary value, as like ourselves, he didn’t know the value until after the claim process had started, They denied the claim because the skid had been removed from the trailer and was sitting on the customers dock, all while the driver was still present mind you. In addition, at some point in transit, the skid had been cross docked and someone had tried to mitigate the damage by using tape to repair the tears in the bags. Again, regardless of my age, had we known what the replacement cost was going to be, we would have made our customer whole. My dissatisfaction arises from the carrier’s “who cares” attitude and their complete lack of responsibility of what was obviously a failure on their part. We understand that freight damage is part of our industry, Lord knows I have paid my share out of pocket for years. My issue, once again, is how some carriers display such an appalling lack of understanding about how to handle freight claims.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: box broker, DIETCOKE and MLCAR
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom