It is our intent to regularly inform you of trending claims affecting our insureds. Having examined our most recent claims data, our analysts have detected a trend in carelessness.
Our claims handlers have been receiving claims where our insureds have been colliding with stationery items such as fire hydrants, low hanging cables, sprinklers, open doors, vehicles, etc. While rearend crashes continue to be at the top of our list, claims like these that are largely preventable have been adding up.
There are a few things to address regarding these types of incidents. First, it is imperative to know the height of your rig. If you’re at all close to the height of a ceiling, you need to be sure that you’re going to fit. That includes inspecting the ceiling for anything hanging that would reduce that height and cause you to crash into it.
Second: Whenever you’re in a tight area or unfamiliar area, do not simply rely on your mirrors for maneuvering. Get out and walk around the rig to get a better understanding of your obstacles and/or utilize a spotter.
Lastly, do not be in too big of a rush. You probably have a normal routine in the way you get in and out of your truck. You likely do a quick visual inspection – if for nothing more than to know that nothing is largely out of place. These routines are important and do not take much time. Do not skip these because you are feeling rushed.
Crashes for an individual do not normally happen, they happen abnormally and infrequently. It is often when we are out of our normal area, out of our normal routine, and or driving outside of our normal speed, that crashes take place. Take extra care anytime you are outside the norm and do not rush past your routine.
Additional loss prevention tips: Park in well-lit, high-traffic lots; position your truck in the view of surveillance cameras and/or guards, whenever possible; make sure the windows are closed and the doors locked whenever you leave the vehicle – even when loading and unloading; activate the vehicle alarm system, if equipped, when locking your vehicle; utilize all available security equipment for added layers of protection when the vehicle is unattended.
Author: cciaweb1blog1
Hit & Run – was it you
We have coached you before that when you are involved in a crash, safely pull over to evaluate and secure the scene, exchange information and take photographs. But what if you didn’t know you were involved in a crash.
Driving an 80,000 lb tractor trailer combination on today’s busy roads is a challenging task. So much so, it requires a licensed professional to do so – even then accidents happen. So what should you do if after a couple miles you are pulled over and told you were involved in a crash that you have no knowledge of. Not only involved, but now are being accused of leaving the scene of an accident.
Believe it or not it’s not so uncommon of an occurrence where a truck clips something like a tree, fence or even a vehicle without knowing – especially when turning. For me, having an office on the 3rd floor near a freeway where big trucks frequent is an awakening experience. You regularly feel the rumble of the truck’s mass and weight coming down the street followed by the jarring sounds of the trailers lifting and falling back onto their couplers.
Being inside the cab with that going on can certainly mask an event as mentioned above. Being accused of leaving the scene of an accident is very serious. Being convicted of that is far worse. Hit and Run involving property damage or injury/death can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony depending on the seriousness of the circumstances involved. A conviction of a hit and run is an automatic one year disqualification of your commercial operating license for the first offence and disqualification for life for a second offence.
If you receive a ticket for leaving the scene, you’re going to need counsel and you will likely appear before a judge. The ticket is the driver license side of things, but there is also a criminal side that deals with intent.
The general standard for intent is, did you or did you not know that you hit something and left the scene and/or should you have known that you hit something being a professional driver with your experience, your particular vehicle and load.
Evidence helps. Just because you are accused of being involved in a crash, doesn’t mean you were. Inspect your truck for any markings/damage consistent with what is being alleged and always take pictures. In one case, our insured was able to provide his load ticket and GPS tracking for the day in question which proved he wasn’t in the area at the time of the crash. So taking note of the time can be very important.
The bottom line is that any time you notice something abnormal, you should make an effort to check it out. It may be nothing or there could be an issue with your vehicle that could create a bad situation or worse. The point is not to dismiss a potential warning sign. Like the Boy Scout motto reads “Be Prepared” and their slogan that reads “Do a good turn daily”. For you drivers, those daily turns are very important.
AB5 – SCOTUS says no review
June 30 – The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to
hear the California Trucking Association’s (CTA)
appeal of California’s Independent Contract rule
(AB5) a California state law aimed at reclassifying
owner-operators as motor carrier employees. This
means that California’s AB5 law, which would
eliminate the traditional subhaul model is expected
to take effect by July 7. Work stoppages at ports
across the state have been planned by truckers in
protest of the bill.
It is unclear how/if AB5 will impact out-of-state
truckers doing business in California. However,
the CTA believes it will have a meaningful impact
as noted in its brief to the Supreme Court: AB5
applies to all drivers while operating in California
including those from out-of-state. Accordingly,
AB5 would require all carriers and their drivers to
comply with California’s laws for employees. AB5
therefore would obligate carriers to either — use
an employee driver for the entire trip (even if the
driver could lawfully operate as an owner-operator
in other states) or — incur the expense and delay
of transferring the freight to a truck driven by an
employee when the freight enters California or to
a truck owned by an owner-operator when the
freight leaves California. The government makes
no attempt to explain how this problem could be
addressed.
The CTA is seeking a new injunction and is
currently assessing its position in obtaining a
determination that AB5 is preempted under the
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.
The association believes that it will take some
months to come up with an effective strategy.
A trial attorney for the CTA (Bob Roginson) recalled
how Uber and Lyft were initially made example
of when AB5 first came out. Roginson expects
a similar move from the state with prominent
trucking companies now that the injunction is
lifted.
Because of the litigious environment in California,
all motor carriers need to mitigate risk by
immediately evaluating their operating models in
the state. We are monitoring the situation and will
update as things progress.
California AB5 Update
The California Trucking Association’s case against California’s Independent Contract rule (AB5) has taken a big hit.
In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 to remove the current preliminary injunction against AB5. Following that ruling, the Association filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, instead of making a decision to hear the case, asked the U.S. Solicitor General to weigh in. After months of silence, the Solicitor General has returned with the conclusion that AB5 would not have a significant impact on prices, routes or services and that further review is unwarranted.
This is not just a California issue. As noted in CTA’s brief to the Supreme Court: AB-5 applies to all drivers while operating in California including those from out-of-state. Accordingly, AB-5 would require all carriers and their drivers to comply with California’s laws for employees. AB-5 therefore would obligate carriers to either — use an employee driver for the entire trip (even if the driver could lawfully operate as an owner-operator in other states) or — incur the expense and delay of transferring the freight to a truck driven by an employee when the freight enters California or to a truck owned by an owner-operator when the freight leaves California. The government makes no attempt to explain how this problem could be addressed.
It is unclear whether or not the Supreme Court will still hear the case or take the advice of the Solicitor General and let the Ninth Circuit’s ruling stand. If the Supreme Court denies review, AB5 will be implemented in the state’s trucking sector immediately. Should the Supreme Court choose to review the case, there is no timeline for completion.
Summer adjournment is at the end of June, but there is no guarantee that the court will make a decision by that time. In that case, a decision would carryover into the next court session which begins in October.
FMCSA Proposes Rule for Speed Limiters
Comment period extended to July 18
The FMCSA is intent on implementing a speed limiter rulemaking. The proposed rule targets motor carriers operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 26,001 pounds or more, whichever is greater, that are equipped with an electronic engine control unit (ECU) capable of governing the maximum speed. The rule states that those CMVs be required to limit their speed (to be determined by the rulemaking) and to maintain that ECU setting for the service life of the vehicle. With this notice of intent, FMCSA requests public comments and data regarding the adjustment or reprogramming of ECUs. The comment period has been extended through July 18. Let your voice be heard. Visit the proposed rule here or visit the Federal Register at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/04/2022-09443/parts-and-accessories-necessary-for-safe-operations-speed-limiting-devices.
New CCIA Gear!
Have you received your new CCIA t-shirt yet?
The CCIA team came up with a new design this year that highlights the theme of the nation’s supply chain. The title of the shirt is “Strongest Link In The Supply Chain”. The tri-tone design shows a class 8 tractor emerging from the center of a black shirt surrounded by chains. The tractor is adorned with wings symbolizing the free movement of goods that are carried throughout the nation. We hope you enjoy it!
Every year, the CCIA team produces a different shirt design and distributes them to its clients. These are typically sent in XL, contact your agent for a different size. We’d love to know what you think about the shirts and are open to ideas for next year’s design.
Vehicle Prices Creating Big Insurance Gap
If you’re looking to buy a new truck right now, you’re likely aware that there’s a supply and demand problem. The supply problem is with parts and how long the problem will last is unknown. So, if you really need that new truck right now, you may be in a tough spot and forced to pay more for it – a lot more. While a used truck will cost you less, relatively speaking, current used truck prices are shockingly high as well.
Because of the ongoing delays with new vehicles, used vehicles have been in high demand leaving fewer of them available. And the ones that are available are being sold at premium prices.
That brings me to our first concern. With regards to your Physical Damage insurance coverage, it’s likely that you are covered for an amount that was determined by “you” before the recent supply issue. This would likely have been a conversation with your agent asking you “how much could you purchase your truck for right now?”. If your vehicle is totaled in a loss, you will be indemnified based on the lesser of the amount you previously valued it at, or the actual cash value using comparables on the market. Because of the current spike in prices, you could be left paying a sizable amount out-of-pocket to find a replacement vehicle. Example: XYZ Trucking had a complete loss to their tractor that they valued at $20,000. Due to the recent supply and demand issue, the market value of that used tractor is now $30,000. XYZ Trucking will be indemnified up to the $20,000 valuation. Now, XYZ Trucking will have to pay an additional $10,000 out-of-pocket to purchase another tractor of like kind.
Our second concern is the problem with the parts supply. Due to the lack of availability with certain parts, repairs to your vehicle could take an indefinite amount of time. Because of this, your vehicle could potentially be deemed a total loss. This would once again put you in the above-mentioned situation of needing a significant amount of money out-of-pocket to find an acceptable replacement vehicle.
It may be time to revisit that valuation and upgrade your protection. Simply call your agent to discuss this important topic.
Appeals Court strikes down Trailer Standards
November 12 – According to a ruling by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, trailers will not have to adhere to stricter emissions and fuel standards.
The EPA and NHTSA set new standards that went into effect in December 2017, but a lawsuit filed by the Truck and Trailer Manufacturers Association paused those standards during litigation.
Trailers would have likely been required to utilize costly aerodynamic technologies such as side skirts, automatic tire pressure systems, wheel covers and tail skirts in order to comply.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals panel deemed that trailers are not self-propelled, and since the EPA regulates “motor vehicles”, the standards set by the Agency are outside of their authority. The EPA argued that the tractor-trailer as a whole should be considered the pertinent vehicle, but the court was not convinced. With regard to the NHTSA, the court found that the Administration can regulate “an on-highway vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more.” Since the term “vehicle” was not defined, the court based on the context, found that in this case the Administration’s reach is limited to machines that use fuel which negates the rule.
The three-judge panel was not unanimous in their decision as Circuit Judge Patricia Millett filed a dissent to the findings of NHTSA’s rule. Judge Millett, citing the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, argued that “vehicles” should be interpreted to• include trailers as it defines “motor vehicle” to include “vehicles” that are “driven or drawn by mechanical power”. The court ultimately vacated all portions of a 2016 final rule on greenhouse gas emission standards that apply to trailers.
Industry professionals have dodged a costly bullet that they claim was a one-size fits all solution and not appropriate for all trucking sectors. For example, fully-loaded trailers used for over-the-road applications will gain efficiencies whereas those operating in local deliveries are burdened with extra weight and will lose efficiency. Furthermore, these areas of efficiency are being achieved organically without the need of overreaching and costly regulatory interference.
Business Cost Increase:
Minimum liability insurance increase to significantly burden truckers’
According to the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) fleet insurance costs rose 12% between 2017 and 2018, the second fastest year-over-year growth rate. The Institute also found that, “Given the substantial insurance cost increases over the last several years, it appears that the industry has reached a ceiling in its ability to continuously cover annual double-digit increases in insurance premiums”.
AND… here we go again, yet another regulatory overreach and a potential significant insurance increase under the guise of safety. This one we’ve seen more than once before – but the numbers still don’t seem to support the need.
A provision to increase the minimum level of liability insurance for truckers has reappeared once again in the “INVEST in America Act” (H.R. 3864) – the House’s version of a surface transportation bill. The provision is gently titled “Updating the required amount of insurance for motor vehicles”. The “Update” would require the minimum amount of insurance for motor carriers to be raised from $750,000 to $2,000,000 (167%) and to be adjusted for inflation every 5 years.
Supporters of the legislation claim that the increase is modest and necessary as it has not been increased since implemented in the 1980s.
The numbers:
In 2018, FMCSA data shows that there were approximately 560,000 crashes with large trucks and buses. Of those, 77.5% were property damage only, 21.6% were injury-related and 0.8% were fatal occurrences. Of those crashes, it is estimated that 0.6% may have not provided enough insurance to adequately compensate the other party(ies).It is unclear where the safety benefit comes into play with this “Update”, but supporters of the legislation point the finger at insurers for not better qualifying carriers. They allege that at higher liability levels, insurers would have more at stake and could be incentivized to make greater efforts to screen out unqualified carriers and adjust insurance rates accordingly. The assumption being that in doing so, they would price the bad carriers off of the roads.
Those in favor of the legislation also point to a 2013 report by the DOT which concluded that “at current levels, liability insurance does not appear to be functioning effectively as catastrophe coverage”. Notwithstanding those arguments, opponents of the legislation claim that doubling and tripling of the minimum insurance requirement is arbitrary and dangerous and would dramatically drive up insurance premiums that would likely cripple many carriers, increase delivery rates which increase the cost of goods to consumers with little to no safety benefit. Additionally, they allege this effort is less about safety and more about the support trial lawyers have in Congress.
In a June 9 full committee markup of the legislation, there was an amendment to strike the insurance provision introduced by Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill. The amendment failed a voice vote and a recorded vote was requested which also failed 38-30. If you’re not familiar, after an amendment to strike a provision is presented, there is a voice vote that is judged by level of sound (who was the loudest). In this meeting all votes fell mostly along party lines, i.e. regardless of sound the Democrat chair struck down the amendment.
The 19-hour hearing ended with the committee approving the five-year, $547 billion INVEST in America Act. The bill was sent to the House floor for further consideration. Be sure to contact your Representative and give your feedback on this very important issue.
DASHCAM VIDEO Renders Eyewitness Incompetent
Video evidence emerging as trump card in lawsuits
Consider this, you’re driving down the road and you hear a loud noise. A motorist just crashed into the back of your truck and was killed. Eyewitness testimony states that you swerved out of your lane and into the motorist’s lane putting you squarely at-fault for the crash. If it goes to trial, it’s highly likely that a jury will find you responsible for the crash and award policy limits to the claimant. If you’re a driver of a larger company, the award could be in the hundreds of millions.
This is a real and active scenario playing out in the state of Florida (Wilsonart, LLC vs the estate of Jon Lopez). However in this case the truck driver had a dashcam that was recording at the time of the crash which contradicts the eyewitness testimony.
In-vehicle dashcams are becoming more commonplace with private motorists and commercial truckers should be weighing the decision to do the same. We’ve all seen first-hand the ability of video evidence (VE) to change/shape opinions such as with the high-profile death of George Floyd and they can help in accident scenes (like the one above) as well.
Evidence in a courtroom is what wins cases and VE is the Ace in the deck. VE can show and often prove fault or innocence instead of simply your word against theirs or in this case false testimony. VE cuts down on fraudulent claims that increase premiums, hurt your loss ratio and your ability to work. VE can also give your insurance company added reason to fight your case in court rather than simply settling the claim without a trial.
In the case above, the judge initially handed down summary judgement (without a trial) in favor of the trucker because of the VE. The dashcam video was presented showing that the driver maintained a straight line of travel and did not swerve into another lane rendering the eyewitness testimony as incompetent evidence. The judge later reversed his decision based on an appeal by the Lopez estate claiming a jury should decide the legitimacy of their witness and expert testimony. However, in the absence of the VE, the trucker would have likely been found 100% at-fault.
This and many other scenarios can be challenged with VE and we feel you should have that tool in your toolbox. For less than $200 you can have a camera installed in your vehicle. Be sure that any camera you purchase has the ability to time/date stamp the video and offers a continuous recording feature. If you do install camera(s), be sure to take action on critical events. If you don’t utilize that data properly, lawyers can use that against you in court.
STAY SAFE!