|
Minimizing Litigation Expense and Reducing Liability by Motor
Carriers
by John M. Daley, Esq.
As some of you may already know, litigation can
be very expensive. Most attorneys charge by the hour, and the hourly
rates for most attorneys with any substantial experience in any sort
of will run from around $300 per hour to $700 per hour and higher.
For the most part, however, it is possible to avoid
litigation, or at least to minimize the expense of litigation, by
seeking professional advice from an attorney or other experienced
professional before you become involved in litigation.
Although you must still incur some expense, the ratio of costs to
benefits is much like the cost of an oil change as compared to the
cost of repairing a seized engine. Most of you probably change your
oil regularly to avoid major problems in the future--why not adopt
the same approach for your business?
The benefit you enjoy by adopting this sort of
"preventative maintenance" program for your business can
reap tremendous financial benefits for you. For example, suppose
that the bill of lading you use does not have a statement
regarding the opportunity to declare a higher value, along with a
blank where the shipper can declare the higher value it wants for
the goods which are tendered to you.
Suppose further that an Non-Vessel Operating
Common Carrier (NVOCC) undertakes to transport a load of optical
disk drives with a destination market value of $400,000 from Yantian,
China to Los Angeles under its own bill of lading, tenders the goods
to you under your own bill of lading for transport to El Paso,
Texas, and that your truck and trailer are stolen at a truck stop in
Cabazon, California while your driver stops for a meal If your bill
of lading does not have a statement regarding the opportunity
to declare a higher value and a blank in which to insert the higher
value required, you will ultimately be held liable for the entire
value of the cargo, or $400,000. See Adams Express Co. v.
Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 504 (1913) (in order to enforce a
limitation of liability in its tariff, motor carriers must provide
their customers with a fair opportunity to choose
between a higher valuation by paying a correspondingly greater
charge); New York, N.H. & Hartford R. Co. v. Nothnagle,
346 U.S. 128, 135-135, 97 L. Ed. 1500, 73 S. Ct. 986 (1953)
("But only by granting its customers a fair opportunity to
choose between higher or lower liability by paying a correspondingly
greater or lesser charge can a carrier lawfully limit recovery to an
amount less than the actual loss sustained"); Caten v. Salt
City Movers & Storage Co., 149 F.2d 428 (2d Cir. 1945); First
Pennsylvania Bank, N.A. v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 731 F.2d
1113, 1116-1117 (3d Cir. 1984) ("There must be a bona fide
alternative enabling the shipper to declare a higher valuation upon
paying a higher rate, in order for the carrier to limit its
liability to the released value at a lower rate"); Sassy
Doll Creations, 331 F.3d at 841 (noting that the reasonable
opportunity requirement "has been part of the Carmack Amendment
jurisprudence for at least the past fifty years . . . and has been
applied throughout the circuits since that time"); Kesel v.
UPS, 339 F.3d 849, 852 (9th Cir. 2003) (continuing to note the
requirement that the carrier has to provide the shipper with
"(1) reasonable notice of limited liability, and (2) a fair
opportunity to purchase higher liability").
On the other hand, if you had consulted with a
transportation attorney regarding your bill of lading prior to the
loss, your bill of lading would have included the appropriate
language and a blank giving your customer the opportunity to declare
a higher value and an effective limitation of liability (e.g.,
$.50 per pound). Your attorney would also advise you to make
sure that your client is aware of this limitation by printing the
limitation on the front of your bills, on the reverse side of the
bills (as part of your terms and conditions of service), and on your
web site, and possibly as an attachment to your credit application.
Your attorney might also advise you to include an attorneys’ fees
clause in your terms and conditions in the event that a dispute
should arise. Thus, under the same circumstances, and assuming the
load weighed 20,000 pounds, your liability for the loss would be
limited to $5,000, and an offer of the $5,000 limit of
liability would probably be accepted.
Even if your offer is rejected and a lawsuit
filed,2 there is a very good chance that you will be able
to obtain a judgment by filing a motion for summary judgment, rather
than after trial, which could result in substantial savings.
In Example 1 below, I shall provide an estimated
cost of defending this lawsuit if summary judgment is granted:
|
Example 1 |
|
Task |
Cost |
|
Case Evaluation and Preparation |
$8,000.00 |
|
Written Discovery Requests |
2,400.00 |
|
Response to Discovery Requests |
3,600.00 |
|
Discovery Motion |
2,900.00 |
|
Deposition Preparation |
2,200.00 |
|
Conduct Deposition |
4,000.00 |
|
Defend Deposition |
4,000.00 |
|
Status Conference |
2,000.00 |
|
Strategy Sessions |
2,000.00 |
|
Summary Judgment Motion |
20,000.00 |
|
Total |
$51,100.00 |
If your terms and conditions included an
attorneys’ fee provision and the Court found that the provision
was enforceable (which it should),3 you might even be
able to recover these fees from the plaintiff.
In Example 2, I shall assume that you did not
obtain the advice of an attorney, but that the form of bill of
lading you borrowed from a prior trucking company employer does
have an effective limitation of liability, that you did not
post the terms and conditions on your web site or obtain your
customer’s explicit agreement to the limitation, that the Court
found that these shortcomings created a "triable issue of
material fact which precluded summary judgment, and that you
prevailed only after a trial. Your estimated litigation cost under
these facts would look something like this:
|
Example 2 |
|
Task |
Cost |
|
Case Evaluation and Preparation |
$8,000.00 |
|
Written Discovery Requests |
2,400.00 |
|
Response to Discovery Requests |
3,600.00 |
|
Discovery Motion |
2,900.00 |
|
Deposition Preparation |
2,200.00 |
|
Conduct Deposition |
4,000.00 |
|
Defend Deposition |
4,000.00 |
|
Status Conference |
2,000.00 |
|
Strategy Sessions |
2,000.00 |
|
Summary Judgment Motion |
20,000.00 |
|
Pre-Trial Order |
6,000.00 |
|
Pre-Trial Conference |
600.00 |
|
Coordinate Expert Report |
2,250.00 |
|
Expert Report |
4,000.00 |
|
Expert Deposition (take) |
4,000.00 |
|
Expert Deposition (defend) |
2,000.00 |
|
Witness List |
600.00 |
|
Exhibit List |
600.00 |
|
Trial Brief |
8,000.00 |
|
Jury Instructions |
4,000.00 |
|
Trial (3 Days) |
12,000.00 |
|
Drafting Findings/Rulings |
1,600.00 |
|
Prepare Judgment |
800.00 |
|
Total |
$97,550.00 |
Since your terms and conditions did not
include an attorneys’ fee provision, and since attorneys’ fees
are not recoverable in the absence of a provision, the net
difference to you would be the full $97,555.00, even
though you prevailed in both cases.
Thus, if you have not already done so, you should
have an attorney conduct an overall review of the forms and
documents you use in your trucking business, including your bill(s)
of lading, tariff(s), Terms and Conditions of Service, and credit
application, and recommend changes to these forms so that they
protect you in accordance with existing law. The same review should
then be conducted on an annual or semi-annual basis to ensure that
your forms keep pace with changes in the law.
You should also have your attorney review your
cargo insurance sales practices and and every lease, Broker-Carrier
agreement, and Transportation/Contract Carriage Agreement before you
sign them. There is no such thing as a uniform business lease
(although there are several commonly used forms), and even if there
were, the lease will not be specifically tailored to address
your concerns as a trucking or other transportation company.
Although there are at least two "model" Broker-Carrier
contracts, I believe that one of them should never be signed
by a trucking company, and the other can be improved upon. Moreover,
Contracts of Carriage are often unique to the particular customer.
Although the following list is not comprehensive,
some of the major concerns which should be addressed in these
procedures and documents are as follows:
Bills of lading--the single most important
thing about bills of lading is to include an effective limitation of
liability, which requires both a notice that the shipper can declare
a higher value (for a higher freight charge) and a blank in which it
may do so, as well as a clear statement that liability is limited
unless the blank is filled in with an amount which is higher than
the limitation. I also recommend placing a "cap" on the
higher value which can be declared without the approval of an
officer (e.g., the President of your company).
In order to make your limitation of liability
effective, you also need to establish a tariff or other means of
calculating the higher amount which should be charged when a higher
value is declared. Your attorney can advise you how this can be
accomplished.
Although a so-called "Standard Truckload
Bill of Lading" is available on the internet, this bill of
lading does not include the provisions carriers need to protect
themselves from excessive liability, including a limitation of
liability, shipper representations or indemnity provisions, or venue
provisions. Accordingly, I recommend that you avoid using
this or any other "off the shelf" bill of lading without
at least having the document reviewed by counsel.
Tariffs--in addition to setting out the
default freight rates you charge, your tariffs should specify how to
determine the amount charged when a higher value is declared. The
tariff(s) should also refer to and incorporate your Terms and
Conditions of Service.
Terms and Conditions of Service--your
Terms and Conditions of Service should include, among other things,
a description of who is responsible for the freight charges owed,
the extent of the liabilities you undertake, a list of goods which
you do not carry, a set of representations and warranties by the
shipper, consignee and third party payor, an indemnity provision, a
limitation or limitations of liability, time limits for filing a
claim and lawsuit in the event of loss or damage, venue and
attorneys’ fees provisions if desired, and a governing law
provision.
Credit Application—each and every
customers should be required to complete a credit application in
which they provide the information you need to verify its
creditworthiness, and your credit application should include (1) a
complete copy of your Terms and Conditions and Service and (2) a
statement that, by signing the application, the customer agrees
to the terms and conditions of service.
Warehouse Receipts--like bills of lading,
warehouse receipts should include a specified limitation of
liability on the front side of the document, along with an
opportunity to declare a higher value for a higher charge, and you
must have a "tariff" or warehouse rate schedule which
specifies how the higher amount is calculated. See California
Uniform Commercial Code §7309(b). You should also include an option
to refuse goods which are tendered with a value which is
higher than that which is acceptable to you promptly after receipt
of the goods tendered for storage. See California Uniform
Commercial Code §7309(c).
Rigging Terms and Conditions--if you
perform "rigging" services (e.g., installing or loading
large equipment for transport), you need a separate set of
"rigging" terms and conditions, since these services are
not normally included as part of the service provided under a bill
of lading or warehouse agreement. You should also discuss with your
attorney and agree upon an appropriate limitation of liability for
any such agreement.
Cargo Insurance Sales—if you sell cargo
insurance, you almost certainly need a a license do so from the
California Department of Insurance. A license to sell "shipper’s
interest" cargo insurance is inexpensive and easy to obtain. By
selling cargo insurance to customers who do not already have their
own policy, you can also satisfy your customer’s concerns about
the risk of loss or damage in the course of transit.
As with all activities, however, selling cargo
insurance creates new risks for you. In particular, if the insurance
turns out to be inadequate, or if the insurance carrier denies a
claim, you might be sued for negligence by your customer.
Accordingly, with the assistance of your counsel, you should prepare
an "insurance guide" which you provide to your customers,
and you should train your employees to be sure that insurance is not
offered for goods or under circumstances where coverage is not
available. Indeed, I recommend to my clients that they adopt a
"script" for use by employees to who sell cargo insurance,
and that all questions be referred either to one or two employees
who are fully familiar with the cargo insurance you offer or to your
insurance broker.
Leases--it is not possible to describe all
of the provisions of a lease agreement about which you could be
concerned in this article. However, since trucking and other
companies in the transportation industry need to be particularly
concerned with the security of the premises they lease, they should
be sure to include a provision in the lease which permits them to
terminate their obligations if the security of the premises is
compromised, or if the security requirements imposed upon them by
governmental authorities cannot be achieved at the leased premises.
Broker-Carrier Contracts--if some of your
business comes from property brokers, you are very likely to be
asked to sign a version the model Broker-Carrier contract which has
been created by the Transportation Intermediary Association (TIA), a
national organization which primarily represents the interests of
property brokers. The TIA model contract includes several provisions
which are contrary to the interests of truckers and should not be
signed without amendment. In my opinion, and in the opinion of
several other knowledgeable transportation attorneys, the TIA model
Broker-Carrier contract is also not good for property brokers,
since can be construed to create liability for them as carriers.
Although the American Trucking Association has a competing model
Broker-Carrier contract which is much better for truckers, I
recommend to my clients that they keep a form of Broker-Carrier
contract which is different from both model contracts, and which I
believe represents a fair compromise between the interests of
property brokers and truckers. If you want to do business with a
property broker who has a form of contract which it uses, you should
present the contract to your counsel and ask him or her to negotiate
the changes you need to protect your interests.
Transportation/Contract Carriage Agreements—although
you should always consult a transportation attorney before you enter
into a Transportation/Contract Carriage Agreement, the American
Trucking Associations has a model contract which you can use as a
starting point, and which is available at
http://www.transportationlaw.net/pdf/ATA-NITLAgreement.pdf.
In many cases, however, a customer who wants to
enter into a Transportation/Contract Carriage Agreement will provide
you with the form of agreement it wants to use. In most cases,
however, this form will include several provisions to which you
should not agree, such as a provision which requires you to accept
liability for the full value of the goods you carry. The contract
will almost certainly have no representations, warranties or
indemnity agreements by the shipper. Thus, every contract of
carriage presented to you by customer or potential customer will
probably require fairly extensive revisions to strike a fair and
appropriate balance between the obligations and risks you undertake
and the amounts you charge for the services provided. In order to
avoid re-inventing the wheel, you should try to change or eliminate
only the most egregious provisions (e.g., by including specific
limitations of liability for specified types of cargo), then insert
a clause which provides that your general or bill of lading Terms
and Conditions of Service shall apply except in the event of
a conflict between those provisions and the explicit terms of the
contract of carriage.
Warehousing Agreements—some companies
with trucking operations also have warehouse operations and, in some
cases, act as the warehousing fulfillment center of one or more of
their customers. If your customer is large enough, it may even
present a warehousing agreement for you to sign which, like
customer-prepared contracts of carriage, will include no limitations
of liability or shipper representations, warranties or indemnity
provisions. Thus, as with a contract of carriage, any such agreement
will usually require fairly extensive revisions to strike a fair and
appropriate balance between the obligations and risks you undertake
and the amounts you charge for the services provided. As with
contracts of carriage, you should at least insert a provision which
specifies that your general or warehouse receipt Terms and
Conditions of Service also apply except in the event of a
conflict between those provisions and the explicit terms of the
warehousing agreement.
Employee Policies, Handbooks and Contracts--like
any other employer, you should have employee policies and handbooks
which make it clear that employees are all "at will,"
which means that they can be terminated at any time, with or without
cause. You should also have policies which indicate that all hiring
and firing decisions are based upon merit, and not because of the
employees’ age, sex, race or other characteristic unrelated to
performance or ability to do the job. You also need both a policy
which prohibits sexual harassment, and a procedure for investigating
and resolving claims of sexual harassment. If you already have these
procedures and documents, you should have them reviewed by counsel
to ensure that they are adequate and appropriate for your business.
If not, you should have counsel draft these documents for your use.
Insurance Policies--you should hire
counsel to review your existing insurance policies, with the
assistance of your insurance broker, to ensure both that you have
the coverages you need and that the exclusions from liability and
conditions of coverage are appropriate for your business. In my
experience, trucking and transportation companies never have
their insurance policies reviewed by counsel, and this omission has
forced my clients to file lawsuits, at great expense to require
their insurance carriers to defend them. In each case, these
lawsuits could have been avoided if the client had hired counsel to
review the policy as soon as it was received (the policy is usually,
if not always, provided to you after you purchase the
coverage). If you do so, you can usually address coverage and
exclusion issues by obtaining a rider or amendment to the policy
which addressed the problem discovered.
Web Sites and Marketing Materials—your
web site and marketing materials should be reviewed by counsel both
to avoid statements which can be used in litigation to establish
liability where there otherwise would be none and so that he
or she can suggest ways in which your web site can protect you in
the event of a lawsuit.
Since web sites and other marketing materials are
intended to induce customers to chose your services over the same
services which are offered by others, they often include broad
claims concerning the superiority of the services you offer, and in
some cases explicit or implied "guarantees." Even if the
claims do not rise to the level of a contractual agreement,
plaintiff’s can rely upon the claims to assert that there is a
"triable issue of material fact" which prevents the Court
from granting summary judgment, which in turn can force you to
settle a case which otherwise might have been dismissed.
The dangers of marketing publication are
dramatically illustrated by the finding of the Court in Schramm
v. Foster, 341 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D.Md. 2004), which arose out of
a catastrophic accident between a pickup truck and a tractor-trailer
in Allegany County, Maryland which severed the roof off the pickup
truck and resulted in severe and permanent neurological injuries to
both the driver and his passenger. In addition to naming the
trucking company, driver and others as defendants, plaintiffs named
the broker who arranged the shipment, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
("C.H. Robinson"), as a defendant.
Since C.H. Robinson only acted as a property
broker did not either own the equipment or hire or supervise
the driver who was involved in the accident, it filed a motion for
summary judgment wherein it asked the Court to dismiss the claims
asserted against it by the plaintiff.
In denying C.H. Robinson’s motion, the Court
explicitly relied upon marketing materials published by C.H.
Robinson in finding that a "triable issue of material
fact" existed, quoting from the materials as follows:
Robinson also addresses the issue of personal
injury liability in its promotional materials:
Just as CHRW [Robinson] takes responsibility
for freight claims, we also step forward when liability issues
arise. We insulate the shipper in three important ways:
1. We work only with carriers who carry full
insurance coverage. When CHRW begins to do business with a
carrier, we verify their insurance coverage and keep a copy in
our files of documents that prove the carrier has Federal
Operating Authority and a current insurance certificate, with a
minimum of $25,000 and $750,000 auto liability coverage. In
addition, we check in with carriers regularly to make sure their
coverage is current and renewed at necessary levels.
2. If an accident occurs, the carrier
indemnifies both the shipper and CHRW from liability.
3. In the rare event that the damage goes
beyond the carrier's insurance limits, CHRW maintains a
liability insurance policy that pays the rest.
Although most marketing materials should be
reviewed only to avoid liability issues, your web site
should be reviewed to determine if it can be modified to provide
additional insulation and protection against liability. For
example, I recommend to all of my clients that they post their Terms
and Condition of Service on their web site in order so that I may
rely upon the publication of the document to rebut allegations by
the plaintiff that it "did not" understand or "could
not have" understood the nature or particulars of the
obligations or agreements to which it agreed when hiring my client
to perform services.
If your web site is interactive, i.e., if your
customers can use the web site to submit credit applications or
place shipping and pickup orders, this is even better, since you can
use the power of the click to force customers to agree to your Terms
and Conditions of Service when they apply for credit or place an
order. You can then rely upon this form of agreement to defend
against various claims. See, e.g., Treiber &
Straub v. United Parcel Service, 474 F.3d 379 (7th
Cir. 2007).
Develop a Document Retention and Destruction
Policy--in addition to reviewing and revising your documents, all
businesses, including trucking companies, you should also create and
enforce an appropriate document retention and destruction
policy, in most cases with the assistance of counsel.
For motor carriers, FMCSA regulations prescribe
particular periods for the maintenance of particular types of
records. However, there are several other laws which include
document retention requirements which may apply to your business,
including the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the
Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"),
and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX"). You may also be subject to
document retention requirements under various State laws and, if you
operate in foreign countries, under the laws of those countries.
Your counsel can identify statutes with document retention
requirements which apply to your particular business.
Any document retention and destruction policy you
adopt must include a provision for a "litigation hold" on
all documents, including electronic documents and data, which (1)
you know or reasonably should know is relevant to the litigation (2)
is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, and (3) is likely to be requested during discovery. See Zubulake
v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
The failure to adopt an appropriate document
retention and destruction policy or failure to include a
"litigation "hold" can be disastrous. For example, in
Zubalake v.UBS Warburg, 229 F.R.D. 422, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2003),
an employment discrimination lawsuit, plaintiff proved that
defendant had failed to produce all of the e-mails requested in
discovery, and the Court held that this failure justified giving an
adverse instruction which permitted the jury to conclude that the
missing e-mails would have had information which was adverse to the
defendant’s position in the litigation. Ultimately, the jury
returned a $29.2 million award.
In United States v. Philip Morris, 327
F.Supp. 2d 21, 26 (D.D.C. 2004) the court awarded sanctions of $2.75
million when it was established that Philip Morris had continued to
delete e-mails after it received a discovery request which
called for the production of the documents.
In Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R., 354 F.3d
739, 748 (8th Cir. 2003), the Court of Appeals upheld the trial
court’s "adverse inference" instructions to the jury
based upon the defendant’s of a voice tape pursuant to its
document retention and destruction policy based upon evidence which
showed that (1) the defendant knew that accidents which caused a
certain type of injuries were likely to lead to lawsuits, especially
in cases involving death or serious injury, (2) the defendant had
preserved such tapes when they contained favorable information.
However, the Court of Appeals held that the trial
court erred by giving an adverse inference instruction based upon
the defendant’s pre-litigation destruction of track
maintenance records, since (1) these documents were destroyed
pursuant to the defendant’s pre-existing document retention and
destruction policy and (2) there was no showing that the defendant
knew or should have known that the documents destroyed might be
relevant to the litigation.
Finally, at least one federal Court of Appeals
has held that even negligent destruction of relevant evidence
can justify the giving of an adverse inference instruction. See
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99
(3d Cir. 2002).
The failure to adopt and enforce an appropriate
record retention and destruction policy can also result in enormous,
unnecessary expense in litigation, since you might end
up having to produce documents you have retained, including
electronic documents, even though those documents should have been
long ago destroyed. If documents are destroyed in accordance with
your normal document retention and destruction policy, you can
reduce your discovery expense and avoid any inference that the
documents were destroyed for the purpose of concealing adverse
evidence.
Although the document retention and destruction
policy you adopt will be unique to your business, there are certain
steps which every company should follow in adopting a Document
Retention and Destruction Policy, including the following:
1. Identify the participants who are involved
in the creation and maintenance of documents. Before you can
develop a retention and destruction policy, you have to know who
creates documents, what documents are created, and how they are
stored and maintained. This can be particularly difficult if your
salespersons have laptops, blackberries and other electronic
documents upon which documents can be created and stored.
2. Identify the categories of documents you
create. Since the time period for retaining documents will differ
depending upon the type of document involved, you must establish a
list of the types of documents which you create and store, and
establish different periods for each category of document.
Moreover, some categories of documents (e.g., employee
medical records and business information from other companies)
must be maintained as confidential.
3. Establish appropriate time periods for the
retention of each category of document you create. The appropriate
period will depend upon the category of document involved and the
jurisdiction(s) in which you do business. For example, if you do
business in several States, you may have to establish different
periods for the retention of certain employee records, or at least
a lengthier period than is required in some States. If you work in
other countries, you must research the laws of the foreign
countries involved, especially in Western Europe and Australia, to
ensure that you are complying with the document retention laws of
those countries.
4. Designate the officers and supervisory
employees who are responsible for enforcing the document retention
and destruction policy you have adopted, and ensure that the
policy is enforced.
Conclusion
In the 1970’s, Fram Oil Filter had a television
commercial which showed a mechanic in his garage fixing an engine.
The mechanic explained that you could easily and inexpensively avoid
major engine problems by replacing your oil filter whenever you
changed your oil. He closed the commercial with the line "You
can pay me now, or pay me later."
The message applies to legal advice as well—you can an attorney
a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars now to make sure
that your documents and procedures are in the best possible shape to
avoid litigation in the future, or you can do nothing and take the
risk of paying tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in
defense of a lawsuit or lawsuits in the future--which makes more
sense to you?
.jpg)
Grand Central Station, New York
|