Tag: Buisness of Trucking

Agreements and Contracts

Be on the look out for any requirement to provide Additional Insured and/or a Waiver of Subrogation by any broker or customer.

As Todd Dills and I discussed in his Just say no: One owner-operator’s approach to broker/customer demands to be ‘additional insured’, brokers and customers frequently require to be added to our policy as an additional insured. This is a covert means to gain free insurance from us as well as avoiding financial responsibility when or if they cause us bodily injury or property damage. Personally, as an Independent Owner Operator myself, I choose to never do business with any broker or customer who, as a condition in the agreement or contract, requires to be added to my policy as an additional insured.

A lesser known, but even worse, condition often included in a broker’s or customer’s agreement or contract is something called a waiver of subrogation. Many are completely unaware of the potential adverse consequences of providing a waiver of subrogation to a broker or customer. Subrogation is a legal tool used by an insurance company to recover losses it paid out to an insured (a claim) from a liable third party who is responsible for those losses. I know that is a bit wordy and complicated. So lets first start with the definition of Subrogation.

merriam-webster.com’s definition of Subrogation;the assumption by a third party (such as a second creditor or an insurance company) of another’s legal right to collect a debt or damages.

When discussing insurance, and specifically an insurance policy, a waiver of subrogation is an endorsement. Similar to a COI (certificate of insurance), the insurance carrier will provide a copy of the waiver of subrogation to the broker or customer who has requested and been granted the waiver.

The best way to show the dangers of granting a waiver of subrogation to a customer or broker is by example. So lets use the same example I used in Todd’s Just say no story.

An owner-op checks in at his direct customer’s facility. “They say back into door 37,” Baker said, and “door 37 has an overhang outside of it.” While the owner-op’s backed in, “the overhang collapses and lands on his trailer.”

The customer then claims “hey, we didn’t give you that door,” saying the owner-op misheard 37 instead of 57. “It’s not our fault. You need to contact your insurance company.”

The owner-op submits a physical damage claim to his own insurance, yet manages to provide sufficient proof to the insurance company that the failed dock overhang was in fact the one that the shipper sent him to. The insurance company says, “Hey, ACME Widgets Inc., you’re responsible. Pay up or we’ll sue” for the cost of the loss.

In the case of a broker asking to be added as an additional insured, keep in mind, too, that given possible affiliations that broker has with bigger businesses, you may be giving away more than you think.

For the sake of this article the broker or customer was not added to the policy as an additional insured. However, they did require and were provided a waiver of subrogation. Notice the bold sentences? That is precisely what subrogation is. Now if we give the broker or customer a waiver of subrogation then our insurance company can not force Acme Widgets, Inc. to reimburse them (our insurance company) for the settlement of the claim.

Why does that matter? Because that claim and settlement will now be a permanent black mark on our insurance history by appearing on both our loss runs and CLUE (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange) reports. Loss runs are a report of claims history on a given policy. A CLUE report is generally a report containing up to seven years of personal-auto and personal-property claims history and up to five-year commercial loss run histories. Insurance companies rely heavily on both of these reports when they determine if they can provide a quote for coverage and if they do provide a quote, what the premium for that quote will be.

The consequence of that black mark will most likely be an increase, which is frequently quite significant, on our future insurance premiums for years to come.

The first thing every truck owner should ask when a broker or customer requires a waiver of subrogation is why? To me the answer is obvious. Either they have a fear that they could be financially responsible for bodily injury or property damage to any truck owner they do business with or they were held financially liable by the means of subrogation and forced to reimburse an insurance company. Both of which are huge, bright red flashing warning lights signaling “ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!”

So for me, if a customer asks for a waiver of subrogation, my answer is the same as when they ask to be added as Additional Insured. Always, NO!

To get more great business tips and trucking news visit Overdrive extra!

Leasing out Equipment?

Call your insurance agent first!

If you have trucks and/or trailers sitting in the parking lot and you’d like them to generate some revenue to help pay the bills by leasing them to a third party company or an independent owner-operator, you’d be wise to contact your insurance agent first. To clarify, I’m not talking here about truck/fleet owners utilizing lease-purchase agreements with drivers in this story, rather lease agreements with independent third-party companies or individuals who assume the responsibility for the safe operation of the equipment.

Take for example one of my customers. They have one truck, and when they started the business, they had one trailer. When that initial trailer suffered a mechanical issue, there was an unexpectedly long period of downtime waiting for necessary repair parts. To minimize the loss of revenue, the customer elected to purchase a second trailer and remove the initial trailer from the policy. Several months later, that trailer had finally received the repair it needed — the owner contacted me and wanted to place the repaired initial trailer back onto the policy.

They informed me they were leasing the trailer to a third party and they wanted the trailer to be insured while in the third party’s possession.

I had the unfortunate obligation to inform them that if they leased out any equipment to a third party, the leased equipment would not be covered while in the “care, custody and control” of that third party. Additionally, all the insurance companies I have access to (10-plus) would not offer the coverage they sought. Insurance that provides coverage for our equipment while it is leased out is hard to come by.

The best guidance I’ve ever received for insurance came from an underwriter. It is especially relevant if we want to insure equipment we lease to a third party. He said: “Usually, you can find insurance for anything if price is not an object. So I am not saying you can’t, just I wouldn’t know where it would be.”

Bottom line, if/when we locate an insurance company who will offer us a quote for equipment we want to lease out, it’s almost a given that the quote will be cost-prohibitive for most truck owners and especially for independent owner-operators or small fleets.

Why? Equipment leased to a third party has a much higher claims rate. Both trucks and trailers that are leased out have an increased potential to be damaged, stolen, abandoned or vandalized when compared to the equipment we operate ourselves or equipment we hire drivers to operate for us.

As a result of this reality, the insurance carriers I represent (accounting for the majority of insurance companies who insure owner operators and small trucking companies in the United States) do not provide any coverage for equipment leased out in this manner. Or, depending on the insurance company, they will only provide limited coverage. Specifically, coverage may be available only when the equipment we lease out is currently not under a lease and is in our “care, custody and control.”

What it all boils down to is if you don’t have the correct insurance coverage while leasing equipment to a third party and you file a claim for a loss, that claim can be denied. The best way to illustrate this is by using a couple of hypothetical yet realistic scenarios.

Lease agreement for both scenarios: John Doe of John Doe Trucking has signed a lease agreement for a term of 1 year with you for a 2022 dry van trailer. As per the lease agreement, John Doe provides you with a certificate of insurance which provides proof of physical damage coverage up to $50,000 for a “non-owned trailer” which is in his “care, custody and control.”

Scenario One: With three months to go on that one-year term, John Doe, without notifying you and without your knowledge, returns the trailer during non-business hours. When you return to work on the next business day you find the trailer. To your dismay you see the trailer has been topped. That is to say, the top of the trailer hit a bridge and has suffered extensive damage. You contact John Doe and he denies that he returned the trailer damaged. You then contact the insurance company on John Doe’s certificate of insurance and file a claim. The insurance adjuster for John Doe’s insurance policy notifies you that John Doe had removed the non-owned trailer coverage 8 months ago. Because there is no coverage for non-owned trailer, your claim is denied.

Scenario Two: Six months into the lease term, John Doe failed to make his lease payment. You attempt to contact John Doe but his number is not in service, the notices you sent him via registered mail are returned and his emails bounce back to you. You check the FMCSA and discover his company John Doe Trucking is “not authorized.” You then contact your local police department and report the trailer as stolen, and contact the insurance company on John Doe’s certificate of insurance to file a claim. The insurance adjuster for John Doe’s insurance policy notifies you that John Doe’s insurance was canceled two months ago. Since John Doe has no current insurance policy, your claim is denied.

After exhausting your attempts with John Doe’s insurance company to recover your losses in the scenarios above, you then file a claim with your own insurance company. During your insurance company’s adjuster’s information gathering and investigation of the claim, the adjuster discovers that the equipment the claim is for is/was leased to John Doe Trucking and was in that company’s “care, custody and control” at the time of the incident that led to the claim for the loss. Your commercial auto insurance policy (as most all do) excludes coverage for any of your equipment that is leased to a third party. Because the trailer is/was under a lease and in John Doe’s “care, custody and control,” the claim can be denied.

If you are already leasing out equipment and have not disclosed that to your insurance agent, I would encourage you to contact them today.

To get more great business tips and trucking news visit Overdrive extra!