Got a really good insurance quote today....

Just got a copy of the appeals court decision. It was upheld due to the control that CHR had over the driver(fines for late del,check calls,ect) which put them in the position of an employer not an agent.

 

With the new CSA lawyers are recommending that a broker not use any safety criteria when evaluating a carrier. How is that for advocating establishing responsible policies? The more I am getting out and starting to sell my brokerage business I am find more and more clients are amazed that the broker does not have to have any standard above active authority and insurance.

 

That is a crock. It is just a way for them to justify their lawsuit. This should have never made it to court. Any judge worth his salt should have struck the lawsuit down during the preliminary hearing stage.

 

Not that i completly agree with it,but if you read the anlysis of sperl v chr you'll see that chr exercised extensive control of the driver,threat's of fines if not delivered on time even though it violated the hos one of the main points. That makes them far more than just an agent,move's them into an employer relationship.

 

The only reason CHR was even named in the lawsuit is because the carrier went out of business. The only way they had a chance of collecting was to go after CH Robinson. CH Robinson had no control over the driver or carrier to force them to violate the hos or any other laws. The carrier could do as I do and mark through any notations of fines or penalties. I also consider it my responsibility as a carrier to not commit to any load that I know I cannot meet the pick up or delivery schedule. If the carrier had not gone out of business CH Robinson would probably not have been involved in the suit.

 

This twisted reasoning is what has brought us to the point we are at.

To make someone responsible to perform their duties under a contract does not make an employer relationship. It isn't even necessary for responsible persons. It is what is required in today's society and a hit in the wallet is the only method that will make many perform.

The person taking the load should not take it if he can't make the delivery. If he does take it, the responsibility rests squarley on his shoulders. This is a product of today's society that fails to take responsibility for it's actions and shifts the blame to another party.

 

CHR was named in the initial action,long before the carrier went out of business. It was the threat of monetary damages to the driver if they did not comply with CHR demands that moved it into a new relationship.

 

Thats the problem in todays society,no matter what it's always someone elses fault.
When you want to control someone else so completley(as CHR did)you move into a new level of relationship. Good chance the carrier could not afford to have fines levied against them.

 

We recommend getting a quote from truckwriters and True North. I believe they both go through Great West. A lot of the time they are less expensive and have better coverage than the customer's current carrier.

As for the lawsuits, who would they go after if the broker wasn't CH and was out of business. The truck and trailer manufacturer?

 

If you didn't already know it the potatos on the load were bought and owned by CHR and going to their facility in Bolingbrook.