the muti carrier driver push

[zorry]

How prevalent is the multi-carrier model ?
How important is it really ?

 

[jelliott]

John- do you think this is an isolated incident or will it become the new normal ?

I have heard more and more of it as renewals come around. Seems like multi's are looking to push the insurance risk/expense off as a way around the issue. As far as the BIG boys influencing it....that is silly. Only a few companies write the multi-carrier policies and most don't offer insurance to big fleets. So no sway would exist. Plus let's be real, if the business was profitable they would be ramping it up, not the other way around. I have said for years, you can't buy equal coverage and protection for half of what full fleets pay. It is simply balancing out as the realities of losses vs premiums continue to develop.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Good point. The lobbyists are not paid by the little guys. The multi carrier model is only a small step from the "group of like-minded drivers" running for a "small carrier" with lower overhead. Its a tough nut to crack, for the big boys, to pay for 2, 3, 4, 5 dozen semis, trailers, straights & plush offices.
I feel for them. I've worked in ops for a medium, but growing, carrier. $100k+ trucks and their maintenance take a big bite. And they're HUNGRY!!!

It's called Free Enterprise. Get over it.

 

[jelliott]

The exposure and thus the risk are exactly the same. Each load is hauled one at a time. The only thing that varies is the name of the carrier on the BOL. Double brokering would come to bear on the carrier, not the owner operator. The part time argument is not valid. There is no such thing as a full time contractor. One is either a contractor or not a contractor.

I agree somewhat. The risk is the same but if carrier A is paying to fully cover the vehicle but only running it half the time (carrier B running it the other half), the cost of equal insurance would actually make this model more expensive for the carrier. If two carriers are paying full coverage, the only one really benefiting there is probably the insurance company.

No it wouldn't matter to the truck for the most part. It would have ramifications in the event of non payment which actually might be beneficial to the OO. Now if the carrier is honest and upfront with the customer....... Well most customers are not keen on their freight being double brokered. For control reason and the fact that they are not named on the insurance certificates of the party MC that is actually hauling the freight.

 

[letzrockexpress]

I have heard more and more of it as renewals come around. Seems like multi's are looking to push the insurance risk/expense off as a way around the issue. As far as the BIG boys influencing it....that is silly. Only a few companies write the multi-carrier policies and most don't offer insurance to big fleets. So no sway would exist. Plus let's be real, if the business was profitable they would be ramping it up, not the other way around. I have said for years, you can't buy equal coverage and protection for half of what full fleets pay. It is simply balancing out as the realities of losses vs premiums continue to develop.

Once again as I have needed to point out before: There are not "multis" as far as carriers go. There are contractors who accept loads from more than one company or source. They are the variable that makes it "multi", not the carrier.

 

[jelliott]

Once again as I have needed to point out before: There are not "multis" as far as carriers go. There are contractors who accept loads from more than one company or source. They are the variable that makes it "multi", not the carrier.

This would be the case IF the contractor accepting the freight had an MC and was the one fully insured, which is what many are changing too.

 

[letzrockexpress]

I agree somewhat. The risk is the same but if carrier A is paying to fully cover the vehicle but only running it half the time (carrier B running it the other half), the cost of equal insurance would actually make this model more expensive for the carrier. If two carriers are paying full coverage, the only one really benefiting there is probably the insurance company.

Neither carrier A nor carrier B is paying anything. The owner operator is paying it all.

No it wouldn't matter to the truck for the most part. It would have ramifications in the event of non payment which actually might be beneficial to the OO. Now if the carrier is honest and upfront with the customer....... Well most customers are not keen on their freight being double brokered. For control reason and the fact that they are not named on the insurance certificates of the party MC that is actually hauling the freight.

Agreed. The non payment to the owner operator is a separate issue though. As far as double brokering, that goes to the integrity and ethics of the carrier, not the owner operator.

 

[danthewolf00]

I see Myself as a contractor not a employee....when someone wants me to work under them i then become a sub-contractor.
As for those guys hauling more than one load and then being overloaded to boot they are the problem not the rest of us that run one load for one carrier at a time.

 

[Turtle]

Read this
and then this
and then this

You'll find the reason for carriers asking for MC numbers for vans that aren't exclusive use. It's in there.

 

[letzrockexpress]

This would be the case IF the contractor accepting the freight had an MC and was the one fully insured, which is what many are changing too.

I don't disagree... My carriers, so far anyway, have not..

 

[zorry]

So is this the carrier wanting the van owner to carry more insurance/ accept more risk ?

 

[danthewolf00]

Nope they are geeting told that the insurance cpy will not cover them if they use muti carrier drivers anymore.

 

[zorry]

That makes sense as they have little, if any control over you.
When you lease to someone they have a vested interest in your safety.

 

[letzrockexpress]

I see Myself as a contractor not a employee....when someone wants me to work under them i then become a sub-contractor.
As for those guys hauling more than one load and then being overloaded to boot they are the problem not the rest of us that run one load for one carrier at a time.

A sub-contractor is a contractor. What has somebody else's behavior got to do with it?

 

[jelliott]

Rocket,

I agree with you. I think we misunderstood each other. I was talking about if the carriers were paying the insurance not the contractor. Yes, if the contractor is paying it, it would not matter or effect either carrier on who's freight was hauled.

 

[danthewolf00]

I had cis fax to each compeny that they are covered BY me for their cargo matter a fact i had to raise the limit just to haul lanstar loads.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Nope they are geeting told that the insurance cpy will not cover them if they use muti carrier drivers anymore.

I have the same insurance company you do. I just renewed my insurance for two of my vans for the year last week and there was no mention of what you are contending.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Rocket,

I agree with you. I think we misunderstood each other. I was talking about if the carriers were paying the insurance not the contractor. Yes, if the contractor is paying it, it would not matter or effect either carrier on who's freight was hauled.

Oh, ok. Got ya..

 

[jelliott]

Oh, ok. Got ya..

In a historic moment, we completely agreed. Of course without realizing it!

 

[Murraycroexp]

I have heard more and more of it as renewals come around. Seems like multi's are looking to push the insurance risk/expense off as a way around the issue. As far as the BIG boys influencing it....that is silly. Only a few companies write the multi-carrier policies and most don't offer insurance to big fleets. So no sway would exist. Plus let's be real, if the business was profitable they would be ramping it up, not the other way around. I have said for years, you can't buy equal coverage and protection for half of what full fleets pay. It is simply balancing out as the realities of losses vs premiums continue to develop.

Well, I AM silly. But you already knew that, John.
Oh, I lost the 2 Jameson shot glasses I was going to give you in the divorce.