What's the #1 reason your detention claims get denied?

Hey all, working on a project to help carriers fight for detention pay. We all know that even with proof, shippers/brokers will find any excuse to deny a claim.
My question for fleet managers and O/O's is: When a claim gets denied, what is the B.S. reason they usually give you? Is it 'the driver was on break,' 'it's not in the contract,' or something else?

We're trying to design an 'undeniable' evidence packet to send them. If you had a magic wand, what are the top 3 data points you would want in that packet to make it impossible for them to argue with?

 

@Ridgeline It's a valid question. Appreciate you asking for clarification.

My determination that it might be a problem comes from two main places:

1. Industry Research: Recent reports from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) put the annual revenue loss from detention time in the billions for the industry. This is just one article:
   Study shines a spotlight on costly, cascading effects of detention time
   
   
2. Anecdotal Evidence: Just Browse this forum and others, there seems to be a lot of frustration around getting paid for wait time, with drivers often feeling like the risk is pushed onto them. The post I saw on Reddit yesterday about the FCFS 'bait-and-switch' is a good example.
   https://www.reddit.com/r/Truckers/comments/1kmyv2o/when_an_appointment_is_actually_not_an/
   

As someone who's been in the industry for a long time, what's your take? Do you find that for most carriers, this is a solved problem and they're successful in billing for it?

 

Great point Ridgeline. Thanks for the detailed insight. I hadn't fully considered the risk of burning a bridge with a good broker, but that makes perfect sense.

So let me ask you this: In your opinion, would that risk be less if the 'ask' for payment came as a professional, data-backed document (with proof) from an automated system, rather than a direct, angry phone call from the dispatcher?"

The proof might be something like:

- GPS timestamps for arrival & departure

- A map showing the truck inside the geofence

- Driver's ELD status as 'On Duty'

- Engine running data

I'm thinking presenting proof like this would feel different (address the transparency problem) and less risky for the carrier maybe?

Another question for you - what other proof would you want to see in a perfect world? Am I missing anything?

 

@wichris, great way to put it. So you're saying the "two-way street" of fees creates a kind of standoff where the easiest option is for the carrier to just ignore the detention and eat the cost.

It gets even worse with the domino effect, right? Detention at Shipper A makes you late for Shipper B, and suddenly the broker is trying to hit you with a late fee.

Here's the question I'm grappling with: What if a carrier had a tool that did two things?

1. It automatically generated an undeniable invoice for the detention at Shipper A.
   
   
2. It also generated a defensive "evidence packet" you could send the broker to prove why you were late for Shipper B, helping you waive the late fee.

You indicated the carrier's weapon is weak. To make it stronger, what data would it need? Would a packet with GPS timestamps, the map, the driver's 'On Duty' ELD status, and engine data be strong enough to make you feel confident using it?