Posts Tagged ‘liability’

Paying Civil Penalty No Longer Offers Backdoor to Liability: FMCSA Revision Takes Effect This Month

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

For years, carriers have been reincarnating themselves under new names in an attempt to escape out-of-service orders, penalties, shut downs, and terrible safety records, presenting a dangerous atmosphere to shippers, customers, and everyone on, and off, the road.  But the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is hoping to crack down on just that with a new revision set to take effect this May.

A Growing Problem

Chameleon carriers are becoming a serious problem in the transportation industry.  A recent study conducted by the GAO found that in 2010, 1,136 new applicants were attributed as chameleon carriers, increasing by 377 since 2005, with 94% being freight carriers. 1

Take, for example, last December, when Devasko Dewayne Lewis was charged as being a chameleon carrier.  Lewis operated Lewis Trucking Company, which was issued an out-of-service order in 2008 as an imminent safety hazard.  Lewis formed a new trucking company, DDL Transport LLC, which was also put out-of-service in September 2011.  When asked whether he had any interaction with another carrier in the past, Lewis stated that he had not, failing to mention Lewis Trucking Company.  Lewis was indicted on federal charges for “making a false statement and seven counts of continuing operation after imposition of an out-of-service order.” 2

In the six year span, (2005 through 2010), the GAO reported an increased number of crashes among chameleon carriers compared to non-chameleon attributed carriers.

chameleon carriers

Click to enlarge

According to the GAO, “chameleon attributes were three times more likely than all other new applicant carriers to later be involved in a severe crash. 1 In fact, according to the report, 18% of those new applicants with chameleon attributes during 2005-2010 were involved in serious crashes compared to 6% of those with non-chameleon attributes.

So what’s being done to prevent these chameleon carriers from operating?  Let’s take a look at the FMCSA’s revision process.

The Revision

In 2004, the FMCSA’s proposal stated that “Payment waives respondent's opportunity to further contest the claim, and will result in the notice of claim becoming the final agency

order,” which was then revised in 2005. 3

However in a 2010 case, the FMCSA explained that by allowing a respondent’s proceedings to become terminated if they paid their penalty in full went against the FMCSA’s enforcement policy, “which requires that the Agency assess the maximum statutory penalty for each violation of law by any person who is found to have committed a pattern of violations of critical or acute regulations issued to carry out such a law or to have previously committed the same or related violation of critical or acute regulations issued to carry out such a law.” 3

In response, the FMCSA stated last December that it would revise the “rules of practice for motor carrier, intermodal equipment provider, broker, freight forwarder, and hazardous materials proceedings,” holding several comment sessions. 3

Last week, the FMCSA acknowledged that it needed to “monitor the safety performance history of carriers who `reincarnate' as a new carrier when faced with enforcement action in order to focus Agency enforcement efforts,” and thus, preventing them from the ability to evade accountability, establishing procedures that would become effective May 29th, 2012. 3

The revisions are as follows (Provided by http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FMCSA-2011-0259-0010):

-“The Agency clarifies that paying the full proposed civil penalty in an enforcement proceeding, either in response to a Notice of Claim or later in the proceeding does not allow respondents to unilaterally avoid an admission of liability for the violations charged.”
-“The Agency establishes procedures for issuing out-of-service orders to motor carriers, intermodal equipment providers, brokers, and freight forwarders it determines are reincarnations of other entities with a history of failing to comply with statutory or regulatory requirements; these procedures will provide for an administrative review before the out-of-service order takes effect.”

-“The Agency establishes a process for consolidating Agency records of reincarnated companies with their predecessor entities.”

What do you think of the FMCSA’s revisions?  How do you feel chameleon carriers should dealt with?

Road Scholar Transport promotes the operation of only safe and qualified carriers on the road, that’s why we are giving you five ways in which you can help reduce the risk of hiring chameleon carriers:

-Research a carrier’s CSA (Comprehensive Safety Analysis) scores. This can be done by going to the FMCSA website (www.fmcsa.dot.gov) and clicking on Safety & Security, Company Safety Record, Safety Fitness Electronic Records System, Company Snapshot, and then entering the carrier’s DOT number, MC number, or name.  By clicking on SMS Results, you will gain valuable information regarding the number of out-of-services and accidents a carrier had as well as citations, helping you choose a safe carrier.

-Receiving daily updated authority/insurance data from carriers through products such as CarrierWatch.

-Research the company’s background. How long have they been in business?  Conducting business with a company who has been operating in the industry for several years and is well-established can help you avoid choosing carriers that are constantly re-incarnating themselves under new names to avoid penalties/out-of-service orders.

-Check the chameleon carrier database.  CarrierWatch grants you the ability to view a list of trucking companies whose operating authority has been revoked.

-Ask around.  Why not go directly to the source of who has experience using a particular carrier?  Referrals are a powerful tool in receiving insider information about a carrier’s reputation.

What measures are you taking to reduce the risk of hiring chameleon carriers? Post your responses at http://gsfn.us/t/2tte9.

1 http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589530.pdf

2 http://www.truckinginfo.com/safety-compliance/news-detail.asp?news_id=75616&news_category_id=12

3 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FMCSA-2011-0259-0010

Trucking Companies Running Carrier/Brokerage Arms Under Same Name are at Risk, Lawyers Explain

Wednesday, July 6th, 2011

Andrew Light and Gregory Feary were just two lawyers who spoke at a recent conference held by the American Trucking Associations.

As an article in Transport Topics notes, a panel of attorneys advised those trucking companies who ran a ATAbrokerage in addition to their own transportation services, to keep the two separate by giving them different names.

Many trucking companies choose to add a brokerage arm onto their current business, finding it easier and cheaper than to create a whole new division with its own legal representation, the site notes.  But that comes with a risk.

As Attn. Light stated, “The motor carrier’s assets are at risk if the brokerage and carrier names are the same” (http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=27055).  But when classified as two different organizations, it would be the carrier and/or shipper held responsible for any liability and the broker gets off, acting as strictly a channel between the two.  For this reason, many shippers require that the carrier have full liability; however, some states have in place “anti-indemnification laws that prevent shippers from fobbing off liability onto other parties,” Feary furthered.

Now consider the fact that most shippers do not know who is handling their freight when shipping via a broker, who often finds the cheapest rate, and thus, the cheapest quality service.  This comes at a high risk of your products being transported by an unsafe and unqualified carrier, which, in return, leaves the shipper at a higher risk of dealing with liability issues than by shipping with an asset-based carrier such as Road Scholar Transport.

So what do the lawyers in attendance at the ATA conference recommend?

First, professionals agree that trucking companies should give their brokerage service a name that is distinguishable, yet similar to their carrier name, Transport Topics continues.

Although Attn. Feary recommends that brokers continue to use the “pass-through” method, he explains that some take it upon themselves to “seek out risk and responsibility,” doing so “as a selling point to shippers.” With that in mind, he also encouraged that carriers be on alert for “contracts and supporting documents that conflict with each other,” and “not to give back in ‘backdoor transaction documents’ what they were careful to claim in the primary agreements on service commitments, rate and payout terms, indemnification and restrictive covenants” (http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=27055).

Road Scholar Transport

With Road Scholar Transport, shippers can always expect that a uniformed, qualified driver with a safe CSA rating will be pulling up to their docks, eliminating the middle man and stress of who is transporting your freight.  And in the unfortunate event of an accident, Road Scholar has liability insurance to protect your freight.  View Road Scholar’s certifications and request a rate today at www.roadscholar.com.

What are your comments regarding the lawyers’ suggestion for trucking companies to keep brokerage separate and give it a new name?

news on the trucking industry

Trucking Company Pleads Guilty to $600,000 Bribe

Tuesday, October 5th, 2010

You may have seen Lasher Brother Trucking Company Inc. in the news recently and it’s not for their quality service.

According to Merced Sun-Star, brothers Kulwant and Tarlochan Lasher, co-owners of the Los Banos, CA company, pleaded guilty yesterday to bribing an IRS officer in an attempt to “eliminate the company’s $2.4 million tax liability.”

So how much of a bribe are we talking about?  Try $600,000 worth.  This amount was not given in tens and twenties either.  Rather, Kulwant Lasher received $56,500 in cash as well as the officer’s “2003 BMW 745L and a quitclaim deed for his home in Los Banos,” in which $95,000 of that bribe Kulwant used to buy a new 745 BMW (http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/10/05/1597457/trucking-company-co-owners-plead.html).

As the site notes, this case is currently the largest thus far of one involving bribery of an IRS official and come Dec. 13, Kulwant can receive a maximum of fifteen years in prison in addition to a $250,000 fine while his brother Tarlochan can be sentenced to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Want quality service?  Then look no further than Road Scholar Transport.  Visit our site at www.roadscholar.com and be sure to check out our new Awareness Program site at www.roadscholarawareness.org.

Red Cross Trailer