One of the most ubiquitous documents in trucking recently changed and now groups and associations are squaring off against each other in an effort to undo those changes. In the ring stands two U.S. shipper groups on one side and the National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA) on the other. The document in question? The uniform motor carrier bill of lading (UBOL).
|
|
Shippers – represented by the Transportation and Logistics Council and NASSTRAC – are taking issues with the change because they believe they will unravel decades of legal precedent and could make it more difficult for small businesses and shippers to collect on potential loss or damage claims. The NMFTA denies this will be the case.
What’s the Problem?
In cases where small businesses ship goods without motor carrier agreements, the UBOL is the contract. The main sticking point lies in the language in section 1(b) that says “the burden to prove carrier negligence is on the shipper.” Previously, the UBOL had put that burden of proof on the carrier’s shoulders.
At issue is the fact that when a shipper gives their goods to the carrier, they aren’t going out to ride shotgun with them. The shipper has no way of knowing what the carrier does with their goods once the goods have left. So how would a shipper prove that damage or loss was the result of carrier negligence?
Still, NMFTA representatives point out that the burden of proof will still fall on the motor carrier when appropriate. The shipper will be required to prove the freight was tendered in proper condition, but delivered in damaged condition. Once this proof is offered, the carrier would then be responsible for taking over the investigation.
They go on to say that if a trucking company does prove that it wasn’t at fault, such as problems on impassable highways or evidence supporting damage at the source, then the burden of proof would fall back onto the shipper to prove the carrier is wrong. Carriers say they aren’t trying to get away with anything, they just want to further clarify the process and procedure.
Yet the shipping groups still disagree. They point to the century-old Carmack Agreement as both ‘standard’ and ‘approved.’ They assert the NMFTA has made a unilateral change without even consulting shipping partners or advocacy groups.
A Deeper Issue
What this current disagreement highlights is that something deeper is at issue here. For some time now shippers and groups that work on behalf of shippers have asserted that they don’t have enough say in determining freight classifications, currently produced under the National Motor Freight Classification by the NMFTA. On the other side, the NMFTA and Commodity Classification Standards Board disagree.
While shippers are able to comment on any pending classification changes, a UBOL is essentially a carrier bill of lading and it remains produced by the NNFTA. One way shippers get around this is by producing their own bills of lading and create carrier agreements negotiated with the fleets themselves.
This is why the shipper groups are arguing this change will disproportionately affect small businesses who utilize shipping pallets without carrier contracts. One problem lies in a lack of knowledge. Many small shippers are simply unaware that they are not required to use the UBOL.
What’s The Resolution?
Fortunately, there is a precedent for cooperation among shipper and carrier groups where UBOLs are concerned. Back in 1997, both NASSTRAC and the NMFTA joined together to create new language for the UBOL that NMFTA is changing today. Could we see them cooperate in the future or will this end in court?
On August 12 the Surface Transportation Board – itself a Department of Transportation Agency – denied a petition asking it to enjoin or suspend the NMFTA’s changes to the UBOL. In its reply to the petition, the STB mused whether it even had jurisdiction to step in.
|
|
Still, the STB did say that the changes in the new UBOL were “not approved by the Board.” Regardless, NMFTA is staunch in its assertion that the STB has no authority here. It looks like only time will tell how this dispute will play out.