Control has been a major determination of liability as it relates to case law. How a truck broker communicates to a carrier can be a major determinant of legal liability in a courtroom.
That being said, there are no best practices or communications regulations dictated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of which we are aware. Furthermore and specifically, the FMCSA has not provided any road map (so to speak) as to how communication is to transpire between a truck broker and a carrier.
Conversely, the FMCSA has given strict rules as it relates to Coercion. See the attached link:
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/coercion
Prudence lends itself to suggest that if a truck broker is doing business with a carrier who has an office or central dispatch, communication should only take place between the insured and the office/central dispatch- and not the driver.
That being said, when the carrier owner is also the operator, there is really no choice for the truck broker but to get in touch with owner operator driver. How the insured should communicate is up for debate.
Texting (essentially illegal in all states while driving) when you know the carrier driver is driving would sell poorly in a court room- although it could be argued that there was no other way to get in touch other than calling. A best practices approach to texting that is quite sensible is for them to add a line at the bottom of the text "that they do not expect the driver to check any texts from the brokerage during the course of transit".
Certainly standards for communication need to set by the FMCSA. Disclaimers, while certainly fallible, do help. We recommend that during the load/transit negotiation and agreement between a carrier and the broker that in writing there should be "the insured/broker does not sanction any FMCSA violations by the carrier in the acceptance of the load". It does not hurt and certainly looks better in the courtroom.
Also, the improvements in technology provide less need for communication and less exposure. We understand there is GPS software that always knows where the load is for as little as $1 a load. If the broker always knows where the carrier is (sooner or later this will be a requirement of transit to obtain the business from the shipper), then there is less reason to need to communicate. Less communication is less control. Less control = less legal liability.
That being said, there are no best practices or communications regulations dictated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of which we are aware. Furthermore and specifically, the FMCSA has not provided any road map (so to speak) as to how communication is to transpire between a truck broker and a carrier.
Conversely, the FMCSA has given strict rules as it relates to Coercion. See the attached link:
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/coercion
Prudence lends itself to suggest that if a truck broker is doing business with a carrier who has an office or central dispatch, communication should only take place between the insured and the office/central dispatch- and not the driver.
That being said, when the carrier owner is also the operator, there is really no choice for the truck broker but to get in touch with owner operator driver. How the insured should communicate is up for debate.
Texting (essentially illegal in all states while driving) when you know the carrier driver is driving would sell poorly in a court room- although it could be argued that there was no other way to get in touch other than calling. A best practices approach to texting that is quite sensible is for them to add a line at the bottom of the text "that they do not expect the driver to check any texts from the brokerage during the course of transit".
Certainly standards for communication need to set by the FMCSA. Disclaimers, while certainly fallible, do help. We recommend that during the load/transit negotiation and agreement between a carrier and the broker that in writing there should be "the insured/broker does not sanction any FMCSA violations by the carrier in the acceptance of the load". It does not hurt and certainly looks better in the courtroom.
Also, the improvements in technology provide less need for communication and less exposure. We understand there is GPS software that always knows where the load is for as little as $1 a load. If the broker always knows where the carrier is (sooner or later this will be a requirement of transit to obtain the business from the shipper), then there is less reason to need to communicate. Less communication is less control. Less control = less legal liability.
