Looking forward to meeting up with many of you at the IMUA annual meeting.  Please stop by and visit with Tiana and me and learn what’s new at CAB.

This month we report;

SAFE FOOD TRANSPORT REGULATIONS – The FDA has released the new regulations related to the safe transport of food product.  These new regulations will have a serious impact on the transport of certain food products and need to be considered by underwriters of food haulers.  I have been addressing this issue with many different groups over the last few weeks and have a recent article in the Spring Edition of Claims Litigation Management that you might want to check out if you are a member. We would like to know if this would be an interesting topic for our next quarterly session.  Let us know!

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act establishes requirements for shippers, loaders, carriers by motor or rail vehicle and receivers involved in transporting human and animal food to use sanitary practices to ensure the safety of that food.

Specifically, the rule establishes requirements for:

Vehicles and transportation equipment: The design and maintenance of vehicles and transportation equipment to ensure that it does not cause the food it transports to become unsafe. For example, they must be suitable and adequately cleanable for their intended use and capable of maintaining temperatures necessary for the safe transport of food.

Transportation operations: The measures taken during transportation to ensure food safety, such as adequate temperature controls, preventing contamination of ready to eat food from touching raw food, protection of food from contamination by non-food items in the same load or previous load and protection of food from cross-contact.

Training: Training of carrier personnel in sanitary transportation practices and documentation of the training. This training is required when the carrier and shipper agree the carrier is responsible for sanitary conditions during transport.

Records: Maintenance of records of written procedures, agreements and training (required of carriers). The required retention time for these records depends upon the type of record and when the covered activity occurred but does not exceed 12 months.

You can review the FDA regulations at a glance here.

TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT LIMIT – The DOT released the results of its mandated Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study. They concluded that they don’t have enough data to recommend a change in the requirements.  You can read the report here.

The study analyzed five technical areas:

Highway safety and truck crash rates, vehicle performance (stability and control), and inspection and violation patterns;

Shifts in goods movements among truck types and between modes;

Pavement service life;

Highway bridge performance;

Truck size and weight enforcement programs.

The results suggest that increasing size and weight will decrease costs and increase safety hazards but with results insufficient for full conclusions.

LARGE TRUCK FATALITIES – The FMCSA also released a report on large truck involved fatal crashes, showing a decrease in 2014 of 5% down to 3,744 total crashes. The decline in number of fatalities involving large trucks and buses declined 2% to 4,161, all with an increase in miles traveled.  The FMCSA reports the following trends:

In 2014, 3,978 large trucks and buses were involved in fatal crashes, a 5-percent decrease from 2013. From 2013 to 2014, large truck and bus fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by all motor vehicles decreased by 4 percent, from 0.143 to 0.138. There was a 33-percent decrease in the number of fatal crashes involving large trucks or buses between 2004 and 2009, followed by an increase of 20 percent between 2009 and 2013. From 2013 to 2014, the number of fatal crashes involving large trucks or buses decreased by 4.5 percent. The number of injury crashes involving large trucks or buses decreased steadily from 95,000 in 2004 to 60,000 in 2009 (a decline of 37 percent). This decline was followed by an increase of 55 percent from 2009 to 2014. On average, from 2004 to 2014, intercity buses accounted for 13 percent, and school buses and transit buses accounted for 41 percent and 33 percent, respectively, of all buses involved in fatal crashes. Over the past year (from 2013 to 2014): The number of large trucks involved in fatal crashes decreased by 5 percent, from 3,921 to 3,744, and the large truck involvement rate (large trucks involved in fatal crashes per 100 million miles traveled by large trucks) declined by 6 percent, from 1.43 to 1.34. The number of large trucks involved in injury crashes increased by 21 percent, from 73,000 to 88,000, and the large truck involvement rate in injury crashes increased by 21 percent. The number of large trucks involved in property damage only crashes increased by 31 percent, from 265,000 to 346,000, and the large truck involvement rate in property damage only crashes increased by 29 percent. The number of buses involved in fatal crashes decreased from 282 to 234, a decrease of 17 percent, and the bus involvement rate in fatal crashes decreased by 21 percent. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by large trucks increased by 1.5 percent, and bus VMT increased by 5.5 percent.

You can read the 120 page report at your leisure here

TRUCKING FAILURES – Avondale Partners reports that truck failures rose in the first quarter, due in part to reduced demand and stagnant freight rates.  1,025 carriers failed this quarter, which stalled 3,585 trucks. This was the highest number of failures since 2014.

ELECTRONIC IN-CAB CREDENTIALS? – 5 states are undertaking a pilot testing system that will allows drivers to use their cellphones, tablets and laptops to electronically present in-cab motor carrier credentials during road side inspections. The 2016 Motor Carrier Electronic Credential Pilot Program will allow drivers in Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota to produce IRPcards, trailer registration, for hire documents, IFTA licences, leases, COI and hazmat registration and non-hazmat bills of lading electronically . CDL, medical cards and regulation handbooks will still have to be produced in person.

BEYOND COMPLIANCE – The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is proposing a new safety scoring category to reward trucking companies for safety programs which voluntarily exceed regulatory requirements and is requesting public comments on its proposal for a possible Beyond Compliance BASIC.  The FAST Act prescribes the eligibility for the Beyond Compliance program. As a result, this program is available to a motor carrier that:

1. installs advanced safety equipment;
2. uses enhanced driver fitness measures;
3. adopts fleet safety management tools, technologies, and programs; or
4. satisfies other standards determined appropriate by the Administrator

A copy of the notice can be viewed here.

CASES

AUTO

A trucking company’s pursuit of its insurance agent failed in the Eastern District of Kentucky. The Court held that the agent bore no responsibility when the trucker provided the agent with incorrect mileage which resulted in a higher premium which the trucker failed to pay. The Court also held that outside evidence that the agent was paid increased premium to advise the insured during the policy period the agent bore no liability for making sure that the trucker paid its premium.  (Hammond Transportation, Inc. v. Cottingham & Butler Ins. Services, 2016 WL 1255718)

While the fact that a driver had no liability insurance was evidence of negligent hiring, it was not the proximate cause of a truck accident and was therefore inadmissible.  The Court of Appeals in Maryland reversed a verdict against the truck driver and his employee, remanding the case back for a new trial.  (Perry v. Asphalt & Concrete Services, Inc. 2016 WL 1178073)

When is there a direct action against a truck insurer in Oklahoma?  The issue was addressed twice this month.  The Easter District of Oklahoma held that there was no direction against the insurer of one trucker who was not registered as an Oklahoma carrier. The fact that it was registered under UCR did not create a basis for a direct action under the Oklahoma statute which permits those actions.  (Mason v Dunn, 2016 WL 1178058) In another case the Court remanded an action in which the insurer was joined as a defendant. The Court held that the insurer was not fraudulently joined where the motor carrier was licensed in Oklahoma and therefore a direct action was permitted under Oklahoma law.  (Miller v. Jackson, 2016 WL 1464558)

The District Court in Kansas dismissed a claim of negligent hiring and attorney’s fees against a trucker.  The Court also held that plaintiff failed to provide a legal or factual basis for violations of Federal Motor Carrier Act and the Safety regulations.  The Court held that there was no private right of action under the MCA or FMCSA.  (Drake v Old Dominion Freight Lines, 2016 WL  1328941)

A plaintiff sought sanctions against a trucker who permitted the loss of driver records when the plaintiff was attempting to show that the driver was suffering from dementia and should not have been driving. The Middle District of Pennsylvania held that while the evidence was unavailable the remedy was simply to preclude the motor carrier from relying on the destroyed records or other evidence to show their contents to support defeating plaintiff’s claims.  (Botey v. Green, 2016 WL 1337665)

There would be no punitive damage or attorney’s fees claim against a trucking company when the plaintiff hit the defendant in the rear. The plaintiff claimed that the trucker negligently entered the roadway with a flat tire which ultimately caused the loss. The Court in Middle District of Georgia also held that the trucker’s motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert, Jeffrey Kidd, was denied. (Vannes v. Smith, 2016 WL 1260703)

The Court of Appeals in Texas upheld a jury verdict against a trucker owner for improper maintenance of the vehicle. The Court held that the fact that there may have been some unnamed other company involved in the maintenance did not preclude the finding against the trucking company.  The Court also held that defendant waived any venue arguments by waiting 18 months to seek a hearing on the issue and agreeing to a scheduling order.  (CMH Set & Finish, Inc. v. Taylor, 2016 WL 1254063)

Be careful of delaying the discovery process. The Western District in Pennsylvania held that a trucker’s failure to pursue proper discovery responses in a timely manner, waiting until discovery ended, precluded any right to get more discovery or depositions.  (Courtney v Ivanov, 2016 WL 1367755)

We don’t often see insurers trying to collect back payments made under the MCS-90. The District Court in Kansas held that an insurer’s claim was not subject to dismissal under the abstention doctrine when there was a related state case pending. The state case sought to obtain recovery for a large judgment against the motor carrier which was denied for breach of policy conditions while the federal action sought recovery for payments already made under the endorsement.  (Star Insurance Co. v. TLC Trucking, 2016 WL 1435250)

An insurer facing a claim for unfair claims and settlement practices jumped the gun in removing an action to Federal Court once the plaintiff settled with all of the state law defendants, creating diversity jurisdiction.  The Court held that when the removal was filed before the settlement with the state defendants was finalized the insurer could not assert diversity jurisdiction.  (Newsome v. Frederick & May Lumber Co, 2016 WL 1337299)

The former employer of an injured truck driver was not entitled to recover for losses suffered by the loss of the driver. The Court of Appeals in Ohio held that there was no evidence that the defendant had specific intent or inferred intent to harm the employer necessary elements for a claim for economic damages based upon defendant’s intentional conduct, (Wheeler Consulting v. Lavalley, 2016 WL 1180327.

CARGO

State law claims for indemnity under contract by a broker against a motor carrier were not preempted under the Carmack Amendment says the Northern District of Illinois. The Court did conclude that the broker had no claim under the Carmack Amendment as it was a broker and not a shipper and also that the breach of the cargo claim regulations did not provide for a private right of action.  (Traffic Tech v. Arts Transportation, 2016 WL 1270496)

If the bill of lading has one limitation and the contract another which one applies?  The District Court in Jersey held that there was a question of fact on which document trumped the other, deciding that a jury needed to decide if liability was limited to $15,000 or $1 million. (Indemnity Insurance Co v. UPS Ground Freight, 2016 WL 1261266)

You can plead alternatively against a broker in the Eastern District of Illinois. The Court held that as brokers are not liable under the Carmack Amendment they are not entitled to preemption for breach of duties that they might have under state law. Alternatively the claim against the broker as a carrier can also continue to be asserted.  (Sompo Japan Insurance Co. v. B&H Freight, 2016 WL 1392339)

 

Hope this spring finds you well.  It was great to catchup with many of you in Dallas at the IMUA regional meeting.  This month I am looking forward to meeting some of you at the Board of Marine Underwriters and the AAIS annual meeting.  If you are there stop by and visit!

Our first quarterly session is being held on Thursday March 31st at 2PM EDT and we hope you enjoy it.  Registration is available here (please review the eligibility requirements before registering). Please email us with any recommendations that you may have for future sessions.

This month we report.

CSA ATTACK – A trade association consisting of more than 30 national and state transportation trade associations is fighting the FMCSA’s decision to use CSA data to determine safety fitness. This month the association filed a letter with the appropriations committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives seeking to convince Congress to defund the program which would allow for the new rating program that CSA seeks to implement. Stay tuned.

INSPECTION BENEFITS – The FMCSA announced that it has concluded that roadside safety inspection and traffic enforcement programs saved 472 lives in 2012 and more than 7,000 lives since 2001. Data from 2012 is the most recent available from FMCSA’s annual Roadside Intervention Effectiveness Model. The agency’s release also estimates that the safety programs prevented nearly 9,000 injuries from more than 14,000 crashes involving large commercial trucks and buses. Some trade organizations have rejected these results. Are you surprised?

CONGESTION ANYONE? – The 2015 Traffic Scorecard measuring traffic congestion in U.S. cities was released.  Los Angeles leads the pack followed by Washington, D.C. More than 8 billion extra hours were wasted in traffic, about 50 hours per driver. Boston, New York, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C. alone racked up 1.5 billion extra commuting hours. That is why I take a boat – less congestion.  The top 10 cities which reflect the extra hours for commuting are Los Angeles – 81 hours, Washington, D.C. – 75 hours, San Francisco – 75 hours, Houston – 74 hours, New York – 73 hours, Seattle – 66 hours, Boston – 64 hours, Chicago – 60 hours, Atlanta – 59 hours and Honolulu – 49 hours (but I have to think this can’t be as bad as congestion in the other nine!).

DRIVER FATIGUE STUDY – The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine has released a report which concludes that insufficient sleep can decrease a commercial motor vehicle driver’s level of alertness, and potentially increase the risk of a crash.  The report did conclude that there is a need for more data to determine the real impact of fatigue on carrier operations, noting that we need more information to understand the factors that affect health and wellness of drivers. The study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation and can be viewed here.

In other related news, a study by the University of Minnesota Morris concluded that truck drivers who do not address sleep apnea problems sufficiently are 5 times more likely to have a serious crash.

FHWA RESPONSE TO FAST ACT – The FHWA has concluded its evaluation of the impact of FAST on size and weight limits for commercial vehicles.  The evaluation results in a number of federal and state regulatory changes. The changes are:

Federal changes include:

• Milk Products: No longer is bulk milk considered divisible. States may issue permits for milk haulers to exceed 80,000 pounds or use the federal bridge formula.
• Emergency Vehicles: States must allow an emergency vehicle a weight limit of less than 24,000 pounds on a single steering axle, 33,500 pounds on a single drive axle, 62,000 pounds on a tandem axle, or 52,000 pounds on a tandem rear drive steer axle (up to a maximum gross vehicle weight of 86,000 pounds). An “emergency vehicle” means a vehicle designed to be used under emergency conditions to transport personnel and equipment; and to support the suppression of fires and mitigation of other hazardous situations. States need to consider these vehicle weight limits when load rating and posting highway bridges.
• Covered heavy-duty tow and recovery vehicles: A vehicle that is transporting a disabled vehicle from the place where the vehicle became disabled to the nearest appropriate repair facility and has a gross vehicle weight that is equal to or exceeds the gross vehicle weight of the disabled vehicle being transported is not subject to Federal weight limitations.
• Natural gas fueled vehicles: A vehicle with an engine fueled primarily by natural gas may exceed any vehicle weight limit on a single axle, tandem axle, and bridge formula weights by an amount that is equal to the difference between the weight of the vehicle attributable to the natural gas tank and fueling system carried by that vehicle and the weight of a comparable diesel tank and fueling system (up to a maximum gross vehicle weight of 82,000 pounds).
• Automobile transporter backhaul, length, and overhang: 1) A transporter is allowed to transport cargo or general freight on a backhaul, so long as it complies with weight limitations for a truck-tractor and semitrailer combination. 2) A state cannot impose a vehicle length limitation of less than 80 feet on a stinger-steered automobile transporter with a front overhang of less than 4 feet and a rear overhang of less than 6 feet.
• Commercial delivery of light- and medium-duty trailers: A state cannot prescribe or enforce a regulation of commerce that has the effect of imposing an overall length limitation of less than 82 feet on a tow-away trailer transporter combination. A “tow-away trailer transporter combination” means a combination of vehicles consisting of a trailer transporter towing unit and 2 trailers or semitrailers with a total weight that does not exceed 26,000 pounds, and in which the trailers or semitrailers carry no property and constitute inventory property of a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of such trailers or semitrailers.

State specific changes:

• Grandfathering of operation on highways in Texas: On any segment of US 59, US 77, US 281, US 84, Texas State Highway 44, or another roadway that is designated as I69, a vehicle can operate legally with the limits that were in place before the date of the designation.
• Grandfathering of operation in Arkansas: On any segment of US 63 between the exits for highways 14 and 75 that is designated as an interstate, a vehicle can operate legally with the limits that were in place before the date of the designation with regards to the single axle weight, tandem axle weight, gross vehicle weight, and bridge formula limits.
• Covered logging vehicles in Wisconsin: Covered logging vehicles operating on I39 from mile marker 175.8 to mile marker 189 may have a gross vehicle weight of up to 98,000 pounds if equipped with 6 axles or more.
• Covered logging vehicles in Minnesota: Covered logging vehicles operating on I35 from mile marker 235.4 to mile marker 259.552 may have a gross vehicle weight of up to 99,000 pounds if equipped with 6 axles or more.

FREIGHT ON THE RISE – The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and the FHWA report that the transportation network will grow by 40 percent in the next three decades.  The value of freight will increase by 92 percent.  Underwriters of cargo should pay attention as inadequate limits will result in more policy limit claims.  By 2045, the total freight on all modes — air, vessel, pipeline, rail, and trucks — is projected to reach 25 billion tons while the value is expected to grow to $37 trillion. The projections are from BTS’ and FHWA’s latest version of the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF), which can be viewed here.  Trucks are by far the single most-used mode to move freight, moving 64 percent of tonnage in 2015 and 69 percent of the value. Tonnage for trucking is forecast to grow 44 percent by 2045, and value is forecast to grow 84 percent.

IMMINENT HAZARD CHANGES – The FMCSA has announced a new high risk motor carrier definition and associated investigative procedural changes. Under the new definition, passenger carriers are “high risk” if they have two or more BASICs in unsafe driving, crash indictor, HOS compliance or vehicle maintenance at or above the 90th percentile for one month and they have not received onsite investigation in the previous 12 months. Non-passenger carriers are considered “high risk” if they have two or more of these BASICs at or above the 90th percentile for two consecutive months and they have not received an onsite investigation in the previous 18 months.

VOLVO RECALL RESULTS IN OUT OF SERVICE MANDATE –  FMCSA has determined that commercial motor vehicles manufactured by Volvo Trucks North America (Volvo Trucks) and affected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Part 573 Safety Recall Report No. 16V-097000, that have not already received the interim or permanent recall remedy repair specified by Volvo in the recall, are likely to cause an accident or breakdown because of a defective steering shaft which may disconnect from the junction block without warning, causing the vehicle to be in an unsafe condition. FMCSA is notifying commercial motor vehicle operators that vehicles subject to the recall without the interim or permanent repair will be subject to an immediate out-of-service order under 49 CFR 396.9 or compatible state regulations.

MEXICAN INSPECTIONS – Beginning May 19, 2015, Mexico-domiciled motor carriers must take their vehicles to a Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes-approved inspection center for a mandatory vehicle inspection. The inspections must be performed once every year, and on the months set on the inspection calendar,   The FMCSA will accept these inspections as compliant with US regulations, noting that the differences in the inspections are not substantial.

CASES

AUTO

We talk constantly about how related companies get brought into litigations and we saw the impact that it can have this month.  The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the trailer owner’s insurance company provided no coverage when the owner leased the trailer to a company owned by the ex-wife of the owner, concluding that the driver was not insured under the policy. The Court also concluded that the MCS-90 was inapplicable as the trailer owner was not the motor carrier engaged to transport the cargo which was being hauled at the time of the accident.  While ultimately the result was favorable, it still likely resulted in substantial litigation expense.  (National Specialty Ins. Co. v. Martin-Vegue, 2016 WL 737780)

It looks like the Court is in for a long road in a serious action brought in the Western District of New York involving a fatal bus and tractor trailer accident.   The driver of the bus brought crossclaims against the bus manufacturer for negligent repair and breach of warranty.  The Court dismissed the breach of warranty claim, allowing the negligent repair claim to go forward. The Court also denied, without prejudice, another Canadian repair facility’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdictional fight took 10 pages to address and still questions of fact remain.  (Hume v. Farr’s Coach Lines, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29757)

A truck driver who stopped to help an injured person may have regretted his decision when his vehicle was struck in the rear, causing injuries to the driver. The District Court in Colorado held that there were questions of fact on whether the driver parked his vehicle safely and acted responsibly, denying summary judgment to the motor carrier.  (Salyards v. Sellers, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24520)

The Eastern District of New York, in a rare move, granted a defense verdict to a motor carrier when plaintiff failed to prove that an accident caused the injuries claim or that the injuries were serious under NY law. The decision found the plaintiff and his witnesses to lack any credibility.    (Krynski v. Chase, 2016 US Dist. LEXIS 30056)

A motor carrier’s request to dismiss a declaratory judgment filed by its insurer, or to transfer the case to California or Nevada was denied by the Eastern District of Missouri.  The Court concluded that California law applied to the interpretation of the policy and that if it transferred the case to Nevada the Nevada Court would apply its own law and further concluded that transfer to California was not in the interest of all parties.  (Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group v. Kailey, 2016 WL 880484)

The Court in the Southern District of New York considered the applicability of coverage for the liability of a shipper and consignee when cargo killed someone during the unloading process.  The Court held that the business auto policies issued to the consignee and the shipper were inapplicable. The consignee’s policy was inapplicable because of the employee exclusion and for the shipper coverage was excluded under the mechanical device exclusion because it was a shipper representative who was unloading the cargo at the time of the incident.  (Employers Ins. Co. v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co., 2016 WL 815277)

A motor carrier who was found vicariously liable for the actions of its truck driver was unsuccessful in obtaining a new trial and avoiding the underlying verdict when the driver did not appear at trial. The 10th Circuit held that the exclusion of the driver’s testimony did not prejudice the motor carrier’s rights and that the damage verdict of $3.32 million was not excessive.  (Hill v. JB Hunt, 2016 WL 737449)

The Court of Appeals allowed a plaintiff the right to obtain all of the medical records of the motor carrier’s driver when the plaintiff sought to determine if there were issues with the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. The driver’s argument that he should not be required to breach the patient-doctor privilege was not accepted by the Court. (Carrrazana v. Western Express, Inc., 2016 WL 797915)

As we have reported over the last few years, more states are enacting anti-indemnity statutes. There are not many cases on the various statutes.  This month the Supreme Court of Iowa held that the statute was inapplicable to a claim against the lessor and its driver by a shipper’s insurer for reimbursement of tow and wrecker bills it paid following an accident.  The Court held that the anti-indemnity statute was inapplicable to private carrier, the lease barred recovery and the driver was an insured under the policy and therefore the anti-subrogation rule applied. (United Suppliers v. Hanson, 2016 WL 929355)

CARGO

The Supreme Court of Florida held that while a cargo loss is generally preempted by the Carmack Amendment a claim for conversion, criminal activity and Florida’s Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act for unauthorized use of an artist’s name was not preempted because a claim for theft of the artist’s work was a harm which was separate from the value of the property.  (Mlinar v. UPS, 2016 WL 825261)

The District Court in New Jersey upheld the preemption doctrine, concluding that a pro-se plaintiff was limited to a cause of action for damages under the Carmack Amendment for damage in an interstate shipment.  (Soares v Bekins Van Lines, 2016 WL 797046)

The Court of Appeals In Kentucky held that the Carmack Amendment permitted a carrier to limit liability for loss or damage to goods but that there was a question of fact as to whether there was a fair opportunity to declare a value.  The Court held that this question of notice also impacted whether the motor carrier was liable for consequential damages.  (Royal Consumer Products v. Saia Motor Freight, 2016 WL 748176)

Forum Selection Clauses are always an issue, whether addressed under COGSA or Carmack.  The District Court in Idaho considered a forum selection clause in a bill of lading involving a shipment from Korea to Idaho. The Court concluded that COGSA, and not Carmack applied under Regal Beloit. Ultimately the Court concluded that circumstances warranted the rejection of the forum selection clause, requiring defendant to litigate in plaintiff’s selected forum. (Idaho Pacific Corp. v. Binex Line Corp., 2016 WL 843254)

There was an interesting case addressing imposter thefts in the Northern District of Illinois.  A broker sought to recover from the warehouse who released freight that was apparently stolen by the driver.  The plaintiff/broker lost because it had previously obtained a judgment against the motor carrier for the loss. The Court held it was inconsistent to allow a second recovery for failure to release the freight to the right carrier when the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the motor carrier for accepting the freight.  (American Transport Group v. California Cartage Co., 2016 WL 890699)

See you next month.