We received an intent to claim in November 2021, this morning I received a claim for $2,000 for the same load. Isn't there a time limit on claims, we paid the carrier in full because we don't except a claim 7 months later. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you!
Claims
- Thread starter OLD GUY
- Start date
30
Under standard rules, an intent to claim must be made within 60 days of delivery and the final statement of claim must be presented within 9 months of delivery.
Of course... You have to read this carefully to see if any exceptions apply based on what was hauled, etc...
Also, if you used a non-standard bill of lading, it may have it's own time limits posted on it, maybe check there first.
Here is a link: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/050643
See Schedule 1 - Item number 12 ( notice of claim ) - about half way down the page...
Good luck sir!
30
When you received the original Notice of Intent to Claim, did you immediately pass it on to the carrier who hauled the freight? Once the Intent is received the onus is now on the carrier to investigate the claim on its merits and either accept or deny it. In this case it sounds like everyone neglected to follow standard procedure. The carrier should have immediately began an investigation, the owner of the goods should have supplied repair/replacement costs and information before proceeding and lastly, you as the broker although not legally a party to the contract of carriage, should have been representing your clients best interests and following up on the progress and resolution of this claim. By everyone seemingly “putting their heads in the sand” on this one, it should come as no surprise that now, the owner of the goods wants to be paid for the damages.
Something to add as well. The freight invoice would need to be paid in full regardless of the claim. That is independent of the claim and no carrier will pay out a claim without the freight bill being paid in full. So in that respect that would be normal SOP.
Standard rules to no apply when they have your money.
30
That is correct, however whether or not the freight bill has been paid does not relieve the carrier from his duties to investigate the claim. Once the investigation has been completed and the final cost of the claim has been determined, the freight bill should be paid. In most cases, either the original freight bill, or the freight bill for replacement/repaired goods, becomes a part of the claim.
Last edited:
20
Lots, and lots, and lots of missing information here.
Where was the load's origin and destination?
When was the load delivered?
Were you the actual carrier, an interliner, or broker?
Assuming the shipper/receiver is your customer, are they a good customer?
When did you receive the intent to claim?
Did you respond to the intent to claim?
So much more needs to be answered.
Based on what you have stated, and making some reasonable assumptions;
1) It was a brokered load. The claim is not your problem. It's the carrier's problem.
2a) Notice of intent was served within the time limit, but was not responded to. No response assumes you are accepting the claim.
2b) If it is a brokered load and you do not want to take responsibility for it, technically Notice was served on the wrong entity, and even though it was a timely service, it is now null & void.
3) Claimant has 9 months to make the claim.
4) If the nature of the claim is quality, it's definitely not your problem at all.
Where was the load's origin and destination?
When was the load delivered?
Were you the actual carrier, an interliner, or broker?
Assuming the shipper/receiver is your customer, are they a good customer?
When did you receive the intent to claim?
Did you respond to the intent to claim?
So much more needs to be answered.
Based on what you have stated, and making some reasonable assumptions;
1) It was a brokered load. The claim is not your problem. It's the carrier's problem.
2a) Notice of intent was served within the time limit, but was not responded to. No response assumes you are accepting the claim.
2b) If it is a brokered load and you do not want to take responsibility for it, technically Notice was served on the wrong entity, and even though it was a timely service, it is now null & void.
3) Claimant has 9 months to make the claim.
4) If the nature of the claim is quality, it's definitely not your problem at all.
It was a brokered load, in the past we have only informed carriers when the claim arrived. Normally this shipper files the claim within a week of the intent letter, this time we were caught out due to the timing. We need to change our system, sometimes we receive an intent to claim but never recieve an actual claim.
It’s a very big customer we’ve had for many years and they have a new person handling the claims, thank you everyone for your input.
It’s a very big customer we’ve had for many years and they have a new person handling the claims, thank you everyone for your input.
30
Most of the bad things that happen to us in business usually result being the best lessons. Few carriers these days, and unfortunately even fewer shippers are adequately versed in the proper handling of freight claims. Strange, in light of the variety of available resources to learn what is required. The worse thing you can do with a freight claim is ignore it. As a broker, you have virtually no legal standing in the settlement of a claim, but you can act as a facilitator to ensure that all parties are following proper procedures. In other words, keeping the ball in the air so it doesn’t get lost or forgotten on someone’s desk. We learned a long time ago to treat every Intent to Claim, regardless of how frivolous or minor it may appear, as an actual, possibly expensive, real freight claim.
30
2b) If it is a brokered load and you do not want to take responsibility for it, technically Notice was served on the wrong entity, and even though it was a timely service, it is now null & void.
30
Technically that is spot on. However, placed in the hands of a smart and creative lawyer, a case could be made that the broker was negligent in not forwarding the intent to claim to the proper party in a timely fashion.
20
Not to be an a$$hat or anything of the sort, but I am curious ... How would you change your system?
You can't hold back all, or part, of a carrier's payment for 60 days waiting to see if the client files a claim.
I would think about the only thing you really could do is be more vigilant when the carrier sends in the BOL with their invoice. If it's clean, they get paid. If it's not clean, they get paid and the carrier and their insurance get put on notice for a potential claim.
@loaders : You are sort of correct there. A smart and creative lawyer could make the claim that the broker failed to forward the intent to claim, but I don't think they could make the case. The law is pretty clear on how the system works, and the system does not include the broker ... UNLESS ... the claimant has provided for, by contract, the broker to mitigate cargo claims on their [claimant's] behalf.
I think I may have mentioned this before; essentially load brokers are no different than real estate brokers. Their role is to simply put two parties together to move freight, and take a fee for doing so. Nothing more, nothing less.
A real estate broker doesn't get involved when lawyers have to talk back and forth. I don't understand why a load broker would want to get involved in the same situation. I suppose the direct communication between the carrier and the client would be a bit unnerving to the broker if they weren't all that secure in the relationship.
30
I think the main takeaway from this incident is directed to brokers. If your customer serves you with an Intent to Claim, inform them that the claim will be dealt with by the carrier whose name appears on the B/L. Have them replace your name with that of the carrier and ensure that it gets delivered to the carrier promptly, even if you have to do that yourself. Then, depending on your relationship with both your customer and the carrier involved, you can decide to either involve yourself as a facilitator to ensure proper procedures are followed by all, or leave the settlement of the claim up to the two parties. We always opt for the former. We view it as part of the value added services we offer our clients.
30
It is unfortunate that Michael has this opinion of freight brokers. Perhaps the ones he has dealt with are of the variety he describes. Speaking for my firm and quite a few others I am familiar with, we do much, much more that just “take a fee”. Certainly we have customers you want nothing more than the cheapest option to move their freight on a particular day, just as many carriers do. We also have more, in fact the majority who rely on us for for more than just a cheap rate to move their freight. We act as consultants on warehousing, proper packaging, long term planning, special project organization to name but a few. I can appreciate that it makes us an easier target when we can be described as simply a one dimensional money grab, but in reality the list of services most brokers offer is lengthy. It is a bit more comprehensive than “nothing more, nothing less”.
Last edited:
https://taylorlawpl.com/2021/08/26/...istrict Court for,that had shifted in transit.
^great read about a large carrier v. a larger broker and customer dealing with a claim. I believe someone else posted this on the forum here before. its an example to what extent all parties involved are responsible, and yes this is in the states so not sure how much it translates over the border here but still good to know how a judge and court could see things. In any case having a good line of communication would be the start of the process, with both your customer and carrier.
^great read about a large carrier v. a larger broker and customer dealing with a claim. I believe someone else posted this on the forum here before. its an example to what extent all parties involved are responsible, and yes this is in the states so not sure how much it translates over the border here but still good to know how a judge and court could see things. In any case having a good line of communication would be the start of the process, with both your customer and carrier.
20
No it's not. That's the very definition of a broker ... bring people together to transact business, and get paid for doing so. That puts you right up there with the wolves of wall street, and various country's secretaries of state. Unfortunately, that's also the same league as pimps and drug dealers.
What you do with your brokerage company, i.e. value added services, determines where you place on the pimp-to-secretary-of-state scale.
Last edited:
30
Can all you asset based guys tell me how many of you would dead head to prince Rupert , Ancorachge Alaska or Saltillo Mexico for a load?
And then tell me you can cover 100% of your customer shipments
And then tell me you can cover 100% of your customer shipments
30
As a carrier, you are only involved in single aspect of the brokers business, the movement of one, particular freight shipment. All of the other services and offerings I referred to have little or nothing to do with you, which possibly explains why you seem so unaware of them, or at best, unwilling to recognize them. Just as there are carriers out there who are liars, cheats and swindlers, there does exist a certain number of unscrupulous freight brokers whose modus operandi is to pay as little as possible for every freight movement they lay their hands on. Fortunately, my firm and those other professional brokers I know do NOT subscribe to that philosophy.
20
