Broker Lumper Chargeback

mrbamcclain · Aug 30, 2013

Ok, this actually happened to me a few months back but a situation I had the other day brought it back to my memory....

I pulled a load out of NH with 4 drops back during the powder (snow) season. 1st drop was in NY 3 pallets. I pulled it no problem and was on my way. 2nd stop was in Jersey at a cross dock who pulled the 10 themselves. 3rd and 4th were both in PA. Had to schedule appts for both. Of course I already know that you can't be forced to hire a lumper so when the work isn't to exhaustive I'll do it myself and make the money. First I ask the lumper service for their estimate and I go off of that as to what I call in the tcheck for to the broker.

So, long story short: I did the work, (only charged for the 3rd and 4th drops) got my tcheck that day, turned in my receipts and about a month later the company I'm leased to called me and said I was being hit with a charge back for the lumper, because I didn't turn in a receipt from the lumper service at the facility! I talked with the broker and explained to them that you got the receipts from me because I did the work! At this point the work is done...so you're saying I did this for work for free???

What is the recourse at this point, well not now but going forward how should I handle this situation?

fr8te_sh8ker · Aug 30, 2013

mrbamcclain said: ↑

I talked with the broker and explained to them that you got the receipts from me because I did the work! At this point the work is done...so you're saying I did this for work for free???
Click to expand...

The truck didn't unload itself. If you cheated someone out of the money, kept it for yourself, that 'someone' would have already reported it by now.

windsmith · Aug 30, 2013

As much as I hate to say it, you don't have a case. In the future, be sure that you get the OK from the broker before paying yourself for the work. See below:

http://www.whitfieldlaw.com/2012/01/11/case-law-update-lumper-fees-in-the-eighth-circuit/

A recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will be of interest to those involved in the transportation industry. Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association, Inc. v. Supervalu, Inc., 651 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2011). The Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association, Inc. [hereinafter OOIDA][1]along with others brought suit against Supervalu, Inc. in the United States District Court for Minnesota. As the case involves the application of federal lawby the Eighth Circuit, the opinion is binding on other federal district courts in the Eighth Circuitsuch as the Iowa based federal courts.
The Facts
The facts of the case demonstrate that members of the OOIDA along with the OOIDA brought suit alleging that Supervalus practices violated 49 U.S.C. § 14103(a). The statue is set out in the margin.[2] In 2005, Supervalu implemented a policy which required that drivers either use Supervalus professional lumpers or be subject to certain insurance requirements established by Supervalu. The facts reflect that Supervalus coverage requirements significantly exceed[ed] those required by 49 U.S.C. § 31139(b)(2) ($750,000). As a result of the suit, Supervalu decreased the required amount to match federal law.
Nonetheless, OOIDA continued with the lawsuit. OOIDAs theory was that Supervalus insurance-coverage requirement effectively required OOIDA drivers to purchase Supervalus new lumping services, in violation of § 14103(a). Id. at 860.
Supervalu argued that drivers maintained the right to unload provided the driver maintained the minimum required insurance. Supervalu argued, alternatively, that even if drivers were required to hire Supervalus lumpers, OOIDA could not prove a violation of the code section because the drivers were reimbursed by shippers. Finally, Supervalu argued the drivers were only entitled to injunctive relief under section 14704.
Procedural Posture
In a series of rulings concerning cross-motions for summary judgment (each party argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law), the district court first concluded that under section 14704 a suit for money damages could not be maintained based upon the plain language of the statute. Second, the district court concluded that judgment in Supervalus favor was proper because OOIDA had not proven that the drivers were not reimbursed for lumping services. Id. at 861.
OOIDA appealed to the Eighth Circuit and argued, in part, that Supervalu, had an unqualified dutyto provide compensation to drivers who are required to use unloading services. Id. at. 862. The Eighth Circuit found that the case was one of first impression; that is, apparently no other court had addressed the issue. Based upon the rules of statutory construction and the legislative history of the statute, the Court concluded that Congress did not intend § 14103(a) to impose on any particular party an unqualified duty to reimburse incurred lumping fees. Id. at 866. Thus, based upon the facts before the Court, the Court found judgment was appropriate in Supervalus favor because there was no evidence that the drivers at issue were not reimbursed by either the shipper or the receiver. Id. As a result, the Court determined that it need not reach the remaining issues.
To that end, at least one member of the panel, Judge Colloton (former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa) wrote separately to concur in the judgment (that is, the judge found the result was correct but wrote to express a different logic). Judge Colloton found, based upon the statute, when a receiver requires an owner-operator to be assisted in unloading a motor vehicle, then the receiver is responsible for providing such assistance or compensating the owner-operator. Id. at 869. Yet, Judge Colloton found an alternative ground existed to support the judgment of the district court. That is, money damages are not an available form of relief under the statute and dismissal of the claims was appropriate.
Consequently, as no party has sought review by the United States Supreme Court, the case is final. Readers will want to watch the continued evolution of these legal theories in the other federal circuit courts of appeal.
Click to expand...

mrbamcclain · Aug 31, 2013

Thanks for that information!

So seeing that the money was readily paid since it was known prior that these costs would be incurred, what difference does it make who does the work and gets paid? Basically the broker said we'll pay the lumper service for the work, but not you! Sounds like they are in bed together to me

bigdogpile · Aug 31, 2013

this is why drivers should never unload, never..and you should be paid to sit there and watch the trailer being unloaded..

windsmith · Aug 31, 2013

mrbamcclain said: ↑

Thanks for that information!

So seeing that the money was readily paid since it was known prior that these costs would be incurred, what difference does it make who does the work and gets paid? Basically the broker said we'll pay the lumper service for the work, but not you! Sounds like they are in bed together to me
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. When I pulled a dry van, I would avoid booking grocery loads through brokers that didn't allow me to pay myself for unloading if I wanted to.

bigdogpile said: ↑

this is why drivers should never unload, never..and you should be paid to sit there and watch the trailer being unloaded..
Click to expand...

There is value in unloading yourself even if you're not going to be paid. I've pulled a partial off my truck and scooted out the gate while drivers that came in after me were still waiting for lumpers.

wichris · Aug 31, 2013

Have some customers that will only pay on lumper service reciepts. And the carriers still turn in their own. When you check with the lumper service you find that they unloaded it and the carrier padded their reciept for more. And then some wonder why they can't do their own.

mrbamcclain · Aug 31, 2013

That's why I always check with the lumper service first. I've never charged more than they've quoted me. Most times the broker knows the usual price anyway with repeat loads

Hurst · Aug 31, 2013

bigdogpile said: ↑

this is why drivers should never unload, never..and you should be paid to sit there and watch the trailer being unloaded..
Click to expand...

Thats nice when the lumpers are on the ball. But any one who has ever been to Trader Joes in Nazareth PA knows they can take 4 - 6 hours before giving you the green light getting your paperwork. Fine if thats your last stop. But if your on a tight schedule, that just wont work. When I ran reefer and I could pull and break down 2 or 3 pallets in 30 mins instead of waiting on them, I would. Even though Trader Joes in Nazareth only charges $2 a pallet lumper fee,.. thats not my point. If I had 12 - 15 pallets coming off,.. then heck yeah,.. lumpers can have at it. I didnt want to break all that ish down.

Marlin46 · Sep 1, 2013

A driver of mine one time lumped it himself and got the $175 through a Comchek from the broker. Seeing the red tape coming up on this one and what was going to happen I thought ahead. Found out the name of the lumper service and did a google search for an "invoice template" and came up with all the receiver info on it, etc..turned it in to the broker at billing and never heard another word about it.

The point is if you know the money is going to be tracked up the ladder then make an invoice that looks like it comes from Lumper to driver and stamp paid on it. All this only applies if you are lumping one yourself.

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Find Trucking Jobs

Broker Lumper Chargeback

mrbamcclain Light Load Member

Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

Wait, employers can't reach you!

fr8te_sh8ker Medium Load Member

windsmith Road Train Member

mrbamcclain Light Load Member

bigdogpile Road Train Member

windsmith Road Train Member

wichris Road Train Member

mrbamcclain Light Load Member

Hurst Registered Member

Marlin46 Medium Load Member

Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

Wait, employers can't reach you!

Log in or Sign up

Useful Searches

Find Trucking Jobs

Broker Lumper Chargeback

mrbamcclain Light Load Member

Wait, employers can't reach you!

fr8te_sh8ker Medium Load Member

windsmith Road Train Member

mrbamcclain Light Load Member

bigdogpile Road Train Member

windsmith Road Train Member

wichris Road Train Member

mrbamcclain Light Load Member

Hurst Registered Member

Marlin46 Medium Load Member

Wait, employers can't reach you!