you can SUE!!!

Sure you can sue, I can sue you just because I dont like your haircut. Doesnt mean I am entitled to money, and it dont mean the judge wont whip your ### for wasting his time. Heck, they might even file a counter claim against you, and if youre lucky youll only have to pay for their time.

My advice, get away from the loads that require lumper fees period.

 

Info below found <here>

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 law by the Eighth Circuit, the opinion is binding on other federal district courts in the Eighth Circuit-such 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 Supervalu’s 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 Supervalu’s professional lumpers or be subject to certain insurance requirements established by Supervalu. The facts reflect that Supervalu’s 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. OOIDA’s theory was that “Supervalu’s insurance-coverage requirement effectively required OOIDA drivers to purchase Supervalu’s 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 Supervalu’s 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 Supervalu’s 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 duty-to 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 Supervalu’s 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.


From what I read, Supervalu won the case, not ooida. If you can find a paper that says other wise, please post it.

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole idea of lumper service is a joke. Just checked on the case you stated, and it looks like supervalu had judgment in their favor. If they lost it would have been judgment in ooida's favor.

 

Why can't they just say "YOU LOSE!" instead of all mumbo jumbo.

 

I have always made money on the lumper services. I simply turn in my own reciept to the company for double of what the lumper charges, I ask for the advance ahead of time. Negociate a price with the lumper and take a nap for my half of the money.

This has worked at May, IWX, Knight and a few others over the years. As for the details I'll let you figure it out.

 

Because then we wouldn't have to pay lawyers 2 arms and a leg to translate it.

 

That`s exactly what I said in another thread a few threads down from this one, and no one said a word about.

 

Some companies forbid you from that. If there's a lumper, they only take their receipt. If you write your own, it's for you doing the work and they don't allow you to subcontract out the work. Even if it's to the party they were going to pay directly.

Not saying I haven't benefited that way, either.

 

From what I understand if the company wants the O/O to pay the lumper out of his pocket then reimburse him in his next invoice then the O/O is out of pocket, he should be paid for using his money. If a company driver did the same as an O/O it should be the same, as the company driver is using his money, but if the company gives the driver the money then the driver should just give the company the original receipt.
The O/O is in business to make money, everybody tries to make a % on what they trade. I hope all that makes sense.

 

every time i have to pay for a lumper, i call foa express code from my company, get a reciecpt turn in in, and on the load settlemant i get paid back for the lumper fees.