In a decision regarding payments between an independent owner-operator and the trucking company that hired their services, the words of a federal appellate court judge may be sound advice for all drivers: “Trust, but verify.”
Judge Joel Flaum noted the phrase — which he said is of Russian origin but popularized by President Ronald Reagan, who put Flaum on the bench — in denying driver Michael Stampley’s lawsuit alleging Altom Transport underpaid him. Altom’s website describes it as a hauler of chemicals and petroleum, based in Indiana.
Stampley was appealing a lower court ruling that denied his claim he should be paid more from Altom in a dispute that centered on two issues. One is uncontested: that Altom billed its customers for tank washes, but the payments Altom received for that were not part of the base amount of revenue that would be used to calculate Stampley’s 70% share to be paid to him. The second issue, and the one that ultimately is what cost Stampley in court, is whether Stampley objected in time. (The decision did not specify any of the sums in question).
The decision handed down last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit spells out the history of the relationship between Stampley and Altom. Under the provisions of the Truth in Leasing regulations that are part of federal trucking law, Altom is required to supply its drivers with “a copy of the rated freight bill, or in the case of contract carriers, any other form of documentation actually used for a shipment containing the same information that would appear on a rated freight bill.” The contract between Stampley and Altom included a provision that Stampley could be given a computer-generated version of the freight bills that it sent to the customers for whom Stampley was hauling freight.
But there was another provision: Stampley had 30 days in which to review the receipts “to contest, in writing, the information contained on any rated freight bill or computer-generated document.” And if he didn’t do so, he “shall waive all rights to contest the validity or accuracy of any/all payments made pursuant to this (section),” according to the wording in the contract republished in the court decision.
The problem with the tank washes, according to the court decision, is that there was nothing about them in the receipts provided to Stampley. And the revenue from these tank washes was not included in the “gross” revenues of which Stampley was entitled to receive 70%.”
But Stampley did not challenge his pay in the 30-day period, a process whereby he might have been able to get a better picture of what Altom was charging shippers for tank washes. As the home page of Bulk Connection, a tanker broker, says about tank washes, “the tank or trailer and equipment used to transport the product must be thoroughly washed and dried before it can be used again to haul another product.”
Stampley did ultimately discover the omission, though the decision does not say how long it took. But it clearly wasn’t within 30 days, leading to the lawsuit.
The original suit tried to bring in other drivers by having it certified as a class action. That attempt failed in the lower court. So did Stampley’s individual claim, on the grounds that he failed to challenge the receipts for his work within the 30 days in the contract.
There is no dispute about the 30-day provision in the contract. Stampley did have a right to see not only the computer-generated invoice that he did receive, but also to examine “the source documents from which such computer-generated information was compiled at Altom’s home office during reasonable business hours.”
But he didn’t do that. As the court said, Stampley “never disputed or requested to view the source documents within 30 days.” But he argues that the 30-day clause doesn’t apply because the computer-generated document didn’t have the same information as the freight bills, which would have detailed the tank washes.
The decision says Stampley knew about the washes; he just didn’t know they weren’t part of the base against which the 70% was calculated. Although it is unclear when Stampley found out about the washes’ omission in the bill, it appears to be relatively soon. Part of the dispute is when the 30-day clock began, and the two sides’ argument on that seems to indicate a relatively short period before Stampley saw the light. The court sided with Altom’s interpretation of when the 30-day clause began.
And that’s when Flaum comes back to his original recommendation: Trust, but verify. Had Stampley availed himself of the ability to review the documents in the 30-day window, “he could have challenged [the washes’] exclusion, so long as he did so within thirty days of each payment,” the judge wrote. “By choosing simply to trust the documents he received and not to verify them, or challenge the exclusion of tank wash funds from his payment until long after the 30-day period expired, Stampley has forfeited his opportunity to do so now.”
Emails sent by FreightWaves to the attorneys for Altom and Stampley were not responded to by publication time.
Supply Chain AI Symposium
Past the hype. Join operators, founders, and enterprise leaders figuring out how to deploy AI in supply chain.
F3: Future of Freight Festival
Industry-defining keynotes, rapid-fire technology demos, and industry leaders networking in experiences across Chattanooga - plus the inaugural F3 Awards Dinner featuring the FreightTech and Shipper of Choice reveals.
Past the hype. Join operators, founders, and enterprise leaders figuring out how to deploy AI in supply chain.
The Old Post • Chicago, IL Register NowIndustry-defining keynotes, rapid-fire technology demos, and industry leaders networking in experiences across Chattanooga - plus the inaugural F3 Awards Dinner featuring the FreightTech and Shipper of Choice reveals.
The Signal at Chattanooga Choo Choo • Chattanooga, TN Register Now
Anytrucker
This is why truckers need uniion representation. Altom would never have pulled this sh*t in the first place if they knew the driver had a union backing him. This is like an owner/operator subtracting a driver, but the umbrellla company regards the driver as an independent contractor for tax purposes.handles loads and hires and fires.
William
The 7th circuit is not trucker friendly his idea that he should be reimbursed for tank washs and the company was double charging and taking advantage of drivers .The court knew this was over before it got started .His attorney did a good job and alot of attorneys won’t give the time of day .This is a good case to learn off The next driver can ask for everything he leaned in this case . He may be down and out but he tried and that takes courage. He can’t file again because resjucata Contracts are sneaky and the scum survive off there trickery .As Mark Twain said A man that can read and doesn’t read is as bad as a man who can’t read .
James Moore
Although, the remarkable action of itemized cost we’re not forwarded in billing a customer, it should had been done. Tanker washes are apart of the delivery or preparation to deliver. Actually, that is a cost not only in freight charges, but operations expenses outside of delivery of any products, thus creating a new account for safety in contamination. However, not providing this billing information is almost like mail fraud.
You must be able to provide a copy of cost to both consumers and carriers for operational deductions..
marcel austin
No I think what is going on is Altom charges Company A say $2000 to pickup and haul a load. In that $2000, is a charge of say $200 for a tank wash. But, the driver only gets %70 of $1800….
S Boyd
And that would be okay if the company was footing the bill for the washes. I might have misinterpreted what was written, but it sounded to me like the driver was making his 70% of the $1800…he was responsible for paying for washes, and yet the company was charging the other $200 for washouts they weren’t paying for and not reimbursing driver for it. And they weren’t including it on the freight bill which he would have the right to see, but were charging it on a 2nd invoice which they weren’t showing the driver. If that’s the case, it would make Altom some thieving SOBs.
James
If the company charges for washing out the trailer then call for a comcheck. If you own the trailer then the money is yours. If the trailer is company equipment and they pay 100 percent then the money belongs to the company. Nothing unfair about them not considering what amounts to an accesorial fee if the company pays for the washout..
Adam Sr
You took the words out of my mouth! Some people out there are so stupid that makes me wonder how they ever became an owner/operator. Need I say anymore!
R shields
This article is poorly written and confuses the reader. I don’t think the author understood the case.
Lil 🚬
The article references a typical yet unusual case. “Get it or dnt”..
There is a story taking place at J.B. Hunt Transportation involving Towery “Tyree” M Burris nick name J.B. Hunt jr who received the estate trust of founder reported granddad Johnny Bryan Hunt in 2013 in Cleveland County NC. Matter settled he made immediate changes at the Transportation company focusing on upgrading the trucking fleet diversity of staff & drivers. He co developed and integrated 360 which helped list & except jobs track hauls and locate carriers etc. Everyone seems to be trying to locate him ….Oddly He is lost haul and 360 Really Works !
Someone inform Lowell Rogers & Ark State police.
*There is a FTC Identity theft report on file stating a impersonation and illegal use of name and likeness.
With a 500,000 guaranteed reward being offered for info leading to arrest after known forgery of Financial documents.
B.A. Smithsonian
Driver getting +×÷=ed by the white collars… it’s the story of trucking.
Ron
Did Altom pay for the trailer wash outs or reimburse the contractor the cost of trailer wash outs? If so then the contractor isn’t entitled to know what Altom billed the customers, or a percentage of that payment.
Margaret
I had the same issue with my ex boss I constantly asked for the rate sheet, he refused he was stealing money from me the whole time I was employed, couldn’t take it no more finally gave notice, he still owes me about 250,000.00 I gave up plus I think the statue of limitrations is over, just glad to get away from him.