ProClaim Fall 2009 - Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

FALL 2009 SPECIAL CONFERENCE EDITION
ProClaim is the official newsletter of freight claim professionals worldwide.
An exclusive publication all copy rights reserved of the
Congratulations
Meet the newest CCP’s from the Spring Class of 2009
All of the following graduates took the CCP Primer Class in St. Louis and
participated in study work groups that week and passed the CCP Exam
with flying colors.
Deanna Avent, CCP - Diversified Transfer & Storage – Billings, MT
Richard Cassar, CCP - One Stop Logistics – Milwaukie, OR
David Nordt, CCP - The Gilbert Company – Keasbey, NJ
Mark Stapley, CCP - C. R. England – Salt Lake City, UT
“A symbol recognized around the world as excellence in the field of cargo claims”
Remaining Exam Schedule for 2009: Oct 21—Atlanta, GA; Nov 7-Nationwide Most
Major Cities. Advance reservation and approval required to sit for any exam.
Donna Wyss is a “CCP” Certified Claims Professional
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 2
WELCOME
NEW CCPAC ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Sarah Bergstresser - Menlo Worldwide Logistics, Portland, OR
Bradley Beyer - Atlas Van Lines Inc., Evansville, IN
Aimie Casey - Mountain Valley Express, Manteca, CA
Peter Celestina - TranSolutions Inc., Scottsdale, AZ
Emily Cook - YRC Logistics, Overland Park, KS
Mark Daugherty - Trailer Bridge, Inc., Jacksonville, FL
Nathaniel Eshun - Antrak Ghana Limited, Tema, Ghana
Patricia Estrada - Mattel, Inc., West Covina, CA
Dennis Freeman - Menlo Worldwide Logistics, Portland, OR
Stephanie Freeman - FedEx Supply Chain Services, Uniontown, OH
Jayne Helman - AFN, LLC, Deerfield, IL
Victoria Hooper - Otis Spunkmeyer, West Columbia, SC
Renee Kerska - Schneider Logistics, Inc., Farmington Hills, MI
Christopher Knapp - Menlo Worldwide Logistics, Portland, OR
Kathryn Krucenski, -Rich Products Corp., Buffalo, NY
Nancy Lapp - Menlo Worldwide Logistics, Portland, OR
Christina Mack - American President Lines, Ltd., Oakland, CA
Cindy Materi - Menlo Worldwide Logistics, Portland, OR
Barton Miller - England Logistics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
Denise Smith - Siemens Energy & Automation, Duluth, GA
Gary St. John- Southern Business Development Strategies Fayetteville, GA
Mani Thiyagarajan -Surveyors & General Surveillance, Nadu, India
Scott Venton, Esq. - Fogler, Rubinoff, LLP, Toronto, ON
Robert J. Young - Pozas Bros. Trucking, San Carlos, CA
Lori Youngberg - Freight Claim Audit.com, Wellington, OH
Annual membership in CCPAC has its rewards. Go on line or use the
application that is part of this newsletter and join today.
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 3
Claim Liability Corner
Your cargo claims and OS&D questions submitted to CCPAC are
answered here.
Question: I have 3 LTL Services that are off setting shortage claims with overages at different locations. I have denied these claims based on the
fact that we were not notified of overages or shortages and that most of the offsets are at entirely
different locations. I have indicated to the carriers
that the only offset I will consider is if it is the
same day delivery, same location and the overage/shortage has to be the exact same amount.
The carriers are still continuing to deny the claims.
Are there any case laws that would reflect what
action can be taken to resolve these claims?
Answer: If the carrier makes a delivery and the
delivery receipt is signed short by the consignee,
this is prima facie evidence that the shipment was
delivered short. Therefore, you have met your
burden of proof (as long as the carrier did not sign
short at origin). At this point, the burden of proof
shifts to the carrier. He must prove why he is not
liable. If he can show that he delivered the missing carton specifically, he would not be liable for
the shortage claim. If that carton was delivered to
a different location, I would say that he is liable for
a mis-delivery if not the shortage. He would be
liable for the cost to get the carton from the incorrect location to the correct location. I would not
think that a carrier would be able to offset one
shortage with another overage if it is not the correct carton or product.
It is important to note that you should check each
carrier’s tariff. It is possible that, in the case of a
mis-delivery, he may only be liable for his prorated freight charges for the original shipment and
not necessarily the actual cost to correct it, if there
is such a provision in the tariff or bill of lading.
I would also note that, if you use these carriers
often, you may be able to negotiate a contract upfront, whereby both parties can agree to specific
rules and liabilities for the specific scenarios that
you mention. It is always better to iron out the details on the front end rather than after there is a
claim.
LAW OFFICES OF
LAWRENCE J. ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES
LAWRENCE J. ROBERTS
249 Catalonia Avenue
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Tel: 305-441-7882
Fax: 305-441-7883
Email: lroberts@lrobertsandassociates.com
www.lrobertsandassociates.com
Do you need help resolving Government Cargo Claims?
I CAN HELP. MY NAME IS WYLIE O. TINDLE AND HAVING
RETIRED FROM MY POSITION IN THE FINANCE CENTER
AND AS A CCP, CLAIMS CONTRACTOR AND CONSULTANT
I HAVE THE EXPERIENCE AND THE CONTACTS TO HELP YOU
RESOLVE THOSE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS.
303-755-9646
wotindle@aol.com
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 4
TRANSPORTATION ARBITRATION BOARD,
The Transportation Arbitration Board (TAB) is a completely
autonomous non-profit corporation designed by its creators to
swiftly, fairly, amicable and is an inexpensive way to settle controversial freight claims between shippers and receivers on one
hand and freight carriers on the other. The current fee to have
a case arbitrated is $150.00 for each party.
The procedure is open to any party and membership in TLP & SA or TLC is not required for arbitration. The
procedure is simple; whenever a claimant and a carrier agree between themselves that their differences
should be settled by a third unbiased and impartial party, they merely execute the legally binding TAB Arbitration Agreement. This agreement and the fee from each of the parties is mailed to the TAB Administrator.
The Administrator acknowledges the receipt of the agreement and fees and assigns a case number.
The claimant then puts together their claim file, including all of the evidence to support their case. They then
write a brief, setting forth the reasons why they feel their claim should be paid. The claimant then sends the
brief and file to the carrier. The carrier examines the file and brief and attaches whatever documents they
feel proves their case, writes a brief, and returns the file to the claimant.
The claimant then has a final opportunity to write a rebuttal brief allowing the carrier a copy of it. No additional evidence or documents may be added to the files after the original assembly by the claimant and carrier. The rebuttal brief of the claimant may only contain a reply to the issues raised by the carrier.
Upon receipt of the files, the Administrator examines the file to verify compliance with TAB procedures, and
then selects a team of arbitrators to consider the case. One carrier arbitrator and one shipper arbitrator is
selected. The photocopies of the file and briefs are sent to the arbitrators. The Administrator retains the
original file. The two arbitrators examine the file and confer with each other to determine and agree upon a
unanimous decision. The decision is written by one of them and the files are returned to the Administrator.
The Administrator retains the working file copies and a copy of the decision and returns the original file to
the claimant and sends a copy of the decision to each party. Compliance with the decision is required within
60 days.
The decision will have the same force as a court decision. In the event the team of arbitrators cannot reach
a unanimous decision, they must return the working files to the Administrator, who will then select a second
arbitrator team and follow the same procedure. The administrator will also notify the claimant and the carrier
of the reassignment. If the second team is also unable to reach a unanimous decision the original file will be
returned to the claimant and the Administrator will advise both parties that a decision cannot be reached by
TAB and the only recourse left to them must be private compromise or litigation in a court of law.
The formal arbitration agreement form and instructions for compiling a brief can be found at http://www.tlcouncil.org/
TAB.htm. For additional information contact Steve Hatch, Administrator at steve_hatch@byu.edu, Office: 801-422-7014
or Cell: 801-921-0044.
Transportation Arbitration Board Case # 531
Carrier Must Refuse Visibly Improperly Packaged Shipments or Assume Liability
T.A.B. Case No. 531
Claimant:
Identities of claimant and carrier have been withheld
Carrier:
Amount:
$ 4,365.36
FACTS:
On May 17, 2007, the carrier issued its bill of lading to the shipper in Kalamazoo, Michigan to transport a
shipment consigned to North Manchester, Indiana. The carrier affixed their pro-label to the bill of lading identifying the shipment as Pro No. 212-0476332 described as 2 pieces Aluminum Rectangle Bar, 2,100 pounds,
(Continued on page 6)
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 5
(TAB CASE 531 DISCUSSION, Continued from page 5)
Class 60. The carrier’s driver signed for 2 at the time of pick up with no exceptions noted. No delivery receipt
or Refused and On Hand Notice was provided by either party to show condition at time of delivery but neither
party has disputed the shipment was damaged on delivery.
CONTENTIONS:
Claimant completed a claim form on May 18, 2007, stating the aluminum is gouged and cannot be used by
consignee for final product and that it was unusable product. The claim amount is $4,365.36. Shippers Order
#4W949 to consignee showed 8 pieces Alum Rect., 2,030.400 pounds at a total price of $4,365.36. Photos
submitted with the claim shows two broken bundles of eight aluminum bars scratched and gouged while on
the floor of a truck trailer.
On June 13, the carrier denies liability to claimant citing improper and no packaging and that the shipment
should have been shipped on the shipper’s own flat bed equipment. The carrier based their decision on information obtained during a telephone conversation with the Traffic Manager of shipper during which time the
carrier was seeking authority to return the shipment.
The shipper responds on August 16 stating their shipments are fully wrapped in cardboard with wooden feet
strapped on the ends and in the middle. They also provided copies of bills of lading of similar shipments that
the same carrier has handled in the past without exception. The shipper also cited that the bill of lading was
signed for by the carrier without exception at origin and the shipment was delivered in damaged condition.
The shipper also provided copies of emails that were exchanged between shippers parent company and the
carrier which took place between June 29 and July 21 that also contained photo attachments showing how
shipments are packaged by shipper, i.e. fully wrapped in corrugate and strapped. However, the photos did
not depict the same type, size and length of the shipment that is the subject of the claim.
September 17, carrier responded to shipper’s letter citing that this shipment and one that was identical, prior
to the shipment in question, was 12 foot long bars and had no packaging other than a single strip of corrugate
wrapped around the bundle and banded on both ends, which in both cases failed causing the loose bars to
slide on the trailer floor with no easy way to pick them up. Carrier reaffirms the denial of the claim stating
they have witnesses on both ends that will verify how both shipments were shipped and the cause of damage
was inadequate and failed packaging that created the scuffing on the bars.
DISCUSSION:
In establishing carrier liability, the claimant has the burden of proof to show the shipment was tendered to the
carrier in good order at origin and delivered in damaged condition. The claimant has met their burden. The
carrier in this case then must show that damage resulted solely from the improper packaging and that the
carrier was not negligent. In order for a carrier to use this defense the deficiency must be latent.
Veracity exists between employees of both parties. The evidence presented by the parties shows the shipment in question was likely not packaged by the shipper as they claim their shipments are when tendered to
common or contract carriers and instead was likely intended for the shipper’s own company truck as their
Traffic Manager had stated.
The carrier stated that the previous shipment was packaged the same way as the one in question and it also
fell apart during transit but for some reason was not refused nor was a claim made. Once a carrier discovers
a packaging deficiency and yet continues to pick up shipments packaged in that manner, the carrier cannot
continue to accept those shipments and then disallow claims based on improper or inadequate packaging.
Additionally, this shipment was not packaged and therefore the deficiencies were plainly visible and not latent.
The carrier had every right to refuse the shipment before pickup if they did not believe they could transport it
safely.
DECISION:
We find the carrier is responsible for the full value of the claim in the amount of $4,365.36 but the carrier is
(Continued on page 7)
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 6
(TAB CASE 531 DISCUSSION, Continued from page 6)
entitled to the salvage or a reasonable salvage allowance by the claimant to help offset their loss. Additionally, pursuient to the written Terms and Conditions of the Motor Transportation Contract that existed between the two parties entered into on April 1, 2005, the carrier will reimburse the claimant their T.A.B. Arbitration Fee in the amount of $150.00.
SMC³ 2009 Loss Prevention Conference
October 19-21 ● Renaissance Concourse Hotel ● Atlanta
SMC³ is a CCPAC Co-Sponsor Member
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 7
Photos from our annual meeting in St. Louis, Spring 2009
Wally Dammann, Incoming CCPAC President (left) and John O’Dell,,
Executive Director (right) present Marcus Hickey, Outgoing President
and current ProClaim Editor (Center) with an award recognizing his
service as CCPAC President for the years 2007 & 2008.
R Robert Gleaseon, CCP (Left)
receives a CCPAC mug from John in
recognition for Bob’s continued support and assistance..
Wally Dammann, CCPAC’s new President (right) calls the annual meeting to
order and John makes a note of those members and guests present.
Wally Dammann, CCPAC ,President (Left), with David Nordt,
Who took the CCP Primer Class and Exam at the conference and
Passed with flying colors.
Save the date!
The 2010 CCPAC annual meeting will once again be in conjunction with the
TLC and TLP&SA Annual Conference
At the Catamaran Resort Hotel in beautiful marina district of San Diego, CA
April 18, 2010—April 21, 2010
See you there!
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 8
What Does Your Certificate of Insurance
Really Cover?
Changing trends in the underwriting of cargo insurance have made a thorough review of the
policy language an essential aspect of a company’s risk management. Because there is no
standard form cargo insurance policy, every policy must be reviewed to determine if it covers a
carrier’s obligations under the
Michael J. Tauscher Carmack Amendment, contractual
obligations to its customers, and the
actual nature of its carriage.
Some cargo policies now make coverage for the cost
of defending litigation optional. This means that the insurer
can decide to pay litigation costs or pay the insured the policy
limits, leaving the insured to cover the expense of litigation.
Other policies require the insured to elect and pay additional
premium for litigation coverage at the inception of the policy.
How one fills out the cargo insurance application is also critical, because failure to accurately describe the commodities
commonly transported, the average value per load and similar
information may result in a denial of coverage.
Michael J. Tauscher is a partner in the firm of Scopelitis,
Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary. He has over 25 years
experience representing and advising transportation
companies and other businesses in federal, state and
local courts and administrative agencies. He has spoken
to various industry groups and at seminars on topics
such as wrongful discharge, employment discrimination,
workers’ compensation, freight claims and no fault insurance.
Mr. Tauscher can be reached by email at
mtauscher@scopelitis.com
In the end, neither the carrier nor other parties in the
supply chain can rely solely upon a cargo insurance certificate.
Rather, the actual wording of the policy must be examined to
determine whether it provides coverage for events, such as loading/unloading or delay, that might apply to a particular
loss.
CCPAC relies on member dues, book sales, co-sponsor event sharing and advertisers on our website and in this publication to support the
continuing operations of the council.
The council is run by volunteers and no one including officers or
staffers receive any salaries. Please support our co-sponsors and advertisers and buy your text books from the CCPAC website on-line as
they make publications like ProClaim possible.
BIGGEST LITTLE COUPON EVER!
YOU FOUND IT! Our newest text
book is now on SALE but only for
this conference and that’s it !
Freight Claims in Plain English 4
We can’t print the price. See the
CCPAC representative at the conference for details on this offer.
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 9
CARRIER REMEDIES
When Load Brokers go Broke !
By: Scott R. Venton and Anas Youssef1
This article is a comment on Ontario law dealing with the insolvency of load brokers, specifically where a carrier (referred to as an "operator"2) is owed fees for carriage by a bankrupt
load broker.
Scott Venton
While other remedies maybe available to operators in this situation, this article specifically
addresses the operator's rights under the Canadian Bills of Lading Act3 [BLA] and the Ontario
Mercantile Law Amendment Act4 [MLAA] or under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act5 [HTA].
Although the facts of each case will affect the operator's rights, the operator may be entitled to pursue the consignee for
payment of outstanding accounts for carriage. Section 2 of the BLA and section 7 of the MLAA make every consignee
subject to all of the liabilities arising from the bill of lading. Even if the broker has been paid by the consignee, these
sections may permit the operator to look to the consignee for payment. This remedy is more fully explained in the Quebec Court of Appeal decision XTL Transport Inc. v Molson Breweries of Canada Limited6.
Alternatively, an operator may rely upon the seldom used trust provisions in section 191.0.1(3) of the HTA. Ontario7 is
one of the few jurisdictions which mandates by statute that funds received in respect of compensation owed to an operator by a broker8, shall be held in trust for the operator.9
Recent cases have dealt with the rare situation where brokers fail to hold operator compensation in trust and subsequently become insolvent10. These cases establish that in order for an operator's fees to be afforded the trust exemption
under bankruptcy legislation,11 such funds must be segregated, and at no time be commingled. This is consistent with
Supreme Court of Canada decisions which establish that only trusts which conform to the Federal requirements of a
valid trust will be excluded from the estate of a bankrupt.12 These cases also establish an obligation on both trustees and
receivers to hold the portion of the collected fees attributable to the operator's services in trust.
Therefore, while operators may have two or more options where they are owed money by insolvent load brokers. It is
recommended operators should protect themselves by confirming that brokers have a separate trust account to hold the
carriage fees before handling loads for a broker.
_________________________________________
1
Scott R. Venton is a Partner and Anas Youssef is an articling student in Fogler, Rubinoff LLP's Transportation Group.
S.16(1) of Highway Traffic Act defines "operator" as: the person directly or indirectly responsible for the operation of a commercial motor vehicle
including the conduct of the driver of, and the carriage of goods or passengers, if any, in, the vehicle or combination of vehicles;
3
Bills of Lading Act, R.S., 1985, c. B-5
4
Mercantile Law Amendment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.10
5
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8
6
XTL Transport Inc. v Molson Breweries of Canada Limited (2007), Q.C.C.A. 1364
7
supra note 2 at s. 191.0.1
8
Section 191.01(3) applies to: "A person who arranges with an operator to carry the goods of another person, for compensation and by commercial
motor vehicle."
9
The trust requirements as set out under the now repealed Truck Transportation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.22 (Load Brokers Regulation, O. Reg. 556/92,
s. 15) regulating load broker activities were incorporated into the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s.191.01(3)
10
GMAC Commercial Credit –Canada v. TCT Logistics Inc. (2005), 74 O.R. (3d) 382 [GMAC] and Norame Inc. (Re) (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 303
11
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, C.B-3, s. 67(1)(a)
12
Supra note 9, GMAC at para. 5
2
Scott Venton is a member of the Transportation Law group at Fogler Rubinoff, which
brings together years of industry specific legal experience and practical knowledge
derived from involvement in matters related to the operational, administrative and human resources aspects of the transportation industry. They offer litigation, corporate
and finance, and labour and employment services.
Scott can be contacted at: 416.941.8870 or email sventon@foglers.com
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 10
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 11
CCPAC OFFICERS & BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CCPAC is staffed by volunteer members—no salaries are paid to officers or staffers
P O BOX 550922
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32255-0922
Contact CCPAC Headquarters
director@ccpac.com 904-390-1506
CCPAC Council President
Wally C. Dammann, CCP
Senior Recovery Agent
MSI Claims (USA), Inc.
560 Lexington Ave., 20th Floor
New York, NY 10022-6828
Phone: 212-230-2966 (direct)
Email: wdammann@msicus.com
CCPAC Council Vice President
Roy R. Pietras, ARM, CCP
Claims Administrator
FedEx Custom Critical
P.O. Box 5000
Green, Ohio 44232
Phone: (234) 310-4072
Email: Roy.Pietras@fedex.com
CCPAC Council Secretary
Brenda Baker, CCP
Senior Claims Analyst
Landstar Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 19060
Jacksonville, FL 32245-9060
Executive Director
John O’Dell, HCCP
Landstar Systems, Inc.
Email: jodell@landstar.com
CCPAC Council Treasurer
Jean Zimmerman, CCP
Senior Claims Analyst
RMCS, Inc.
13410 Sutton Park Drive South
Jacksonville, FL 32224
Phone: 904-390-1419
Email: jzimmerman@landstar.com
CCPAC Legal Counsel
William D. Bierman, L.L.M.
Nowell, Ambroso, Klein& Bierman
155 Polifly Road
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: 201-343-5001
Email: wbierman@nakblaw.com
Immediate Past President
and Board member
Marcus Hickey, CCP
Cargo Claims Manager
Forward Air, Inc.
2865 George Page Jr. Rd.
Columbus, OH 43217
Phone: 800-347-0071 ext. 3426
Fax: 614-497-5032
Email: mhickey@forwardair.com
ProClaim Editor
Marcus Hickey, CCP
Forward Air, Inc.
Email: mhickey@forwardair.com
Past President / Board member
Teresa Jones, CCP
Senior Manager Cargo Claims
FedEx Freight
P.O. Box 5006
Harrison, AR 72602
Phone: 870-741-9000 ext. 2153
Fax: 870-391-7414
Email: teresa.jones2@fedex.com
Past President / Board member
Cindy Carey, CCP
Transportation Solutions
P.O. Box 1617
McDonough, GA 30253
Phone: 770-474-1555
Email: ccarey@tsilogistics.com
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 12
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 13
Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?
Evaluating HazMat Spill Response Invoices
By Earl Breese, CHMM and Clay Richter, CHMM,
Emergency Response & Training Solutions
Earl Breese
A thick 9” x 12” manila envelope arrives on your desk early Monday morning with an invoice that
wakes you up more than your morning coffee. As you peruse the itemized charges, Gilbert and Sullivan’s
The Mikado echoes in your head –
“Let the punishment fit the crime”.
Are these charges justified and what
do they mean? Is there a basis for
negotiating a reduction in the overall
bill? There are a number of factors
to consider when evaluating an invoice for settlement.
Invoices usually have three
or four categories of charges. These
are the labor / manpower, equipment / vehicles, consumables, and
subcontracted items. These categories may overlap or vary slightly
from contractor to contractor, but
they provide a rational basis for
evaluating an invoice.
Individuals perform different
job functions to complete the remediation process. Typical duties for a
Project Manager include initial dispatch of response crews, evaluation
of response activities, review of subcontractor invoices, and communication with the clients. Some of
these duties may be assigned to
office staff. Foreman / Supervisor
duties include crew management,
documentation of site condition and
work activities including equipment,
manpower and supplies used.
Safety Officers evaluate hazards to
the on-site crew and determine mitigation actions to minimize those
hazards.
Equipment operators are
trained in the operation of the equipment utilized to expedite the cleanup. Response Technicians are
highly trained laborers that have
specific hazardous materials training
and are familiar with the hazards of
dealing with those materials. Truck
drivers and laborers have a lesser
amount of training with hazardous
materials, and utilized in lower exposure situations to supplement the
more highly trained technicians.
Equipment and vehicles are
the second area of the invoice that
should be reviewed. Most equipment is adequately described in the
invoice and pricelists provided by
the contractor. One item that may
also appear in this area is a PID
Meter, a device that measures the
level of hydrocarbons and other
compounds. This device is typically
used to determine when no further
contamination appears to be present in an excavation.
Consumable supplies such
as oil-dri, absorbent boom, pads,
and drums comprise the third group
of charges on an invoice. Other
items of this nature include personal
protective equipment (PPE) that
runs the gamut from Level A to
Level D. Level A PPE is a fully encapsulated suit and supplied breathing air. It is used for the highest hazard conditions or where the extent of
the hazard cannot be determined.
Level D typically consists of a Tyvek
suit or work coveralls with no respiratory protection. Level D is the typical level of protection for diesel fuel
releases.
The fourth group of charges
on an invoice is subcontracted items.
These items are typically comprised
of functions that the contractors do
not do themselves. Laboratory
analysis, waste disposal including
landfill and treatment facilities,
remediation supplies including fill
dirt, topsoil, and landscaping materials, specialty equipment rentals and
some transportation functions comprise the bulk of these subcontracted items.
When a contractor’s invoice
is reviewed, there should be sup-
porting documentation to justify all
of the charges. A standard rate
sheet should be provided. The contractor should also provide a narrative of tasks accomplished during all
phases of the remediation with photographs depicting the site before,
during and after the remediation
process. All subcontractor charges
should also be included.
When reviewing labor
charges, the supporting documentation provided by the contractor
should include starting and stop
times listing all individuals and their
functions. These times can be directly compared to the billed hours
listed on the invoice. Other factors
that should be reviewed include
crew size, manager to laborer ratio,
and the severity of the release.
Equipment charges should
be scrutinized to ensure that the
equipment utilized was necessary
for the release. Contractor vehicles
are typically one area that provides
low hanging fruit when reviewing an
invoice is overtime / weekend rates
for equipment.
Charges for materials used
by a contractor during the course of
a response should be evaluated in
the context of applicability to the
response and markup. This area is
where most contractors recoup the
cost of outfitting their response trailers. A reasonable markup over the
cost of these materials should be
allowed.
Most subcontracted invoices
are marked up anywhere from 10 to
25%. This mark up is to cover out
laid cash and administrative costs.
These charges are one area where
rapid payment can be utilized as a
negotiating tool to obtain a reduction
in overall cost.
Environmental and spill response management firms utilize all
of these tools when reviewing an
(Continued on page 15)
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 14
(HAZ MAT, Continued from page 14)
invoice. Some environmental and
spill response management firms
maintain a database of costs by
geographic region for comparison
purposes. Environmental project
managers draw on their experience
with numerous similar situations to
further pare down unnecessary
charges. Response methods, manpower and equipment can be discussed with the contractor to verify
that items included in the invoice
were appropriate and necessary to
meet regulatory requirements.
Another cost saving method
that can be employed is the utilization of a qualified environmental and
spill response management firm at
the earliest possible opportunity in a
hazardous material or environmental release situation. By acting
as a “gatekeeper” in the initial phase
of a response, the proper levels of
equipment and manpower can be
dispatched to mitigate further releases and to stabilize a situation.
Informed decisions on remedial activities can advance cost saving alternatives like bioremediation,
planned excavations and preapproved disposal options.
Whether evaluating HazMat
spill response invoices alone at your
desk over a cup of coffee that tastes
a little more bitter with each sip, or
utilizing the services of a qualified
environmental and spill response
management firm to present you
with a more palatable final invoice,
you can take comfort in not having
to swallow a questionable invoice.
www.logistics-edu.com/
The Institute of Logistical Management is a
CCPAC Co-Sponsor Member
CCPAC HQ update by John O’Dell, Executive Director
We are aggressively working to develop more resources for our members to earn continuing education
points both locally and on-line. If you have recently attended a claims course, attended a cargo claims conference or webinar and want to get CCPAC continuing education credits, contact Council headquarters today with the presenters contact information or website address. We’ll take it from there.
If you have not renewed your dues yet for 2009, there is still time. All Associate, CCP and HCCP
members who renew and pay dues earn 5 CCPAC continuing education credits. Dues for 2010 will be due
in January. Because of the expense we no longer send invoices for dues. Each member must renew and
pay dues on-line or down load the application from the website and pay by check by mail.
Certified members must acquire 30 continuing education credits every three years in order to maintain
certification or retake the exam.
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 15
CCPAC MEMBERS GET SAME RATES AS
IATA MEMBERS
TO REGISTER GO TO
http://www.iata.org/events/cargo-claims
In these extremely challenging times, the IATA Cargo
Claims & Loss Prevention Conference helps prevent
loss of precious revenue by promoting practical solutions for efficient processing of air cargo claims.
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 16
APPLICATION TO TAKE THE CCP EXAM FOR CERTIFICATION AS A
CERTIFIED CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL—Part 1
I hereby apply for certification as a Certified Claims Professional (CCP) by the Certified Claims Professional Accreditation Council, Inc. (CCPAC).
Full Name: _________________________________________________________________________
Title or Present Position: _____________________________________________________________
Company: _________________________________________________________________________
Company Address: __________________________________________________________________
City, State,
Zip &Country: ______________________________________________________________________
Business e-mail address: _________________________________________________________________________
Home
Address: __________________________________________________________________________________________
City, State,
Zip & Country: ____________________________________________________________________________________
Office
Phone No: (______) ______ - ____________
Fax No: (______) ______ - ____________
Home
Phone: (______) ______ - ____________
Cell No: (______) ______ - ____________
Home
E-mail
Address: __________________________________________________________________________________________
Please check if correspondence to be mailed to: ( ) Office or ( ) Home
I am enclosing herewith the applicant’s calculation of points accumulated form, my resume of professional experience, list of employers and the inclusive dates which I was employed. I have obtained
from the instructors certificates of completion from various accredited courses and seminars were continuing education credits were awarded and I am enclosing herein a certificate of transcript of courses
taken, credit hours awarded, grades earned, and degrees conferred from an accredited institution of
higher learning. I hereby certify the information contained in this application and the enclosures as true
to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am enclosing payment in the amount of $150.00, payable to
the Certified Claims Professional Accreditation Council, Inc., to cover the application fee and administrative costs for the CCP exam and certification. (The fee for retaking the CCP examination is reduced
by half or $75.00)
Date: _____________________________
Signature: _______________________________________________________
Mail to: CCPAC, Inc. • Exam Committee • P. O. Box 550922 • Jacksonville, FL 32255-0922
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 17
APPLICATION TO TAKE THE CCP EXAM FOR CERTIFICATION AS A
CERTIFIED CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL—Part 2
CCP APPLICANT’S CALCULATION OF POINTS ACCUMUALTED SCHEDULE FORM
Attach to Application for Certification
Applicant’s full name:__________________________________________________________________
Company:___________________________________________________________________________
In order to be eligible to take the CCP examination, the applicant must have earned no fewer than 100 points (at
least 25 points of which must be derived from actual cargo claim experience) under the system described in the
Rules for Certification. The following constitutes a sufficient summary of the Rules. However, the applicant
should carefully examine the CCPAC Rules for Certification to be certain that he/she understands them.
The schedule below can be used to show how point accumulation has been met.
A. EXPERIENCE: Enter points here based on schedule below; [_________________]
(1) Employment: Freight claims preparation and filing, investigation and settling or supervision or management
thereof; teaching of courses related there to as a full-time faculty member, and in the practice of transportation
law or insurance. If more than 50 percent of your responsibilities consisted of these functions, 20 points per year;
if less than 50 percent, 10 points per year.
(2) Officer in a Professional Organization? Enter points here based on schedule below; [_________________]
Participation as Chairman, President, Director, Officer, Committee Chairperson of freight claims or related organizations entitles the applicant to record earned points, with a maximum of 10 points per year of service.
B. EDUCATION: Enter total points here based on schedule below; [_________________]
College or University Credit? (a) Degree Credit or (b) Non-Degree Credit:
(a) If you received a degree from an accredited college, university, or transportation academy, 50 points; 25 additional points for a Master’s Degree, and 25 additional points for a Doctorate. Transcripts required.
(b) If you did not receive any such degree, 12 points per each successfully completed academic year (non degree).
Special Courses: Enter points here based on schedule below; [_________________]
(a) Transportation Courses (other than those focusing on loss and damage) received from an accredited university or transportation academy; 5 points per “quarter hour” and 7 points per “semester hour” (or the equivalent).
(b) Loss and damage courses successfully completed at an accredited college, university, or transportation
academy; 10 points per “quarter hour” and 15 per “semester hour” (or the equivalent).
(c) For courses taken at educational seminars, conferences, meetings or home study, whose focus is freight loss
and damage and which have been accredited by CCPAC; one point per hour of formal classroom lecture or the
equivalent thereof.
(d) Publication of Articles. No less than two points nor more than ten points per article, as determined by CCPAC.
In computing your points, remember that each category is cumulative. An applicant with a degree or years of credit at a business school, but without a transportation or logistics major, may upon subsequently achieving 15 credits in logistics or transportation may amend and petition CCPAC for full academic credit for the previous education. NOTE: Fulltime faculty at accredited colleges, universities, or transportation academies shall not be entitled to points for teaching their college credit
courses. Completion of special courses such as seminars conducted by CCPAC or CCPAC Co-Sponsor Organizations,
where the courses have been accredited by CCPAC shall entitle the applicant to the points ascribed by CCPAC. A certificate
designating successful completion of the course and listing the CCPAC Educational Credits assigned should be given to
each person attending.
Applications for the national exam in November and payment ($150.00) must be submitted no later than August 31 each year
(postmark date) for the next CCPAC examination generally scheduled on the first Saturday in November of each year. A
nonrefundable late application fee of $25.00 will be charged for applications postmarked after September 15. Applications
received after that date will be held for the following year’s examination. CCPAC will from time to time offer optional dates,
locations and times for CCP certification exams to be held in conjunction with Co-Sponsor Organization conferences and
meetings. Information on submitting applications and payment of exam fees will be made available on the Official CCPAC
website.
Total Points Accumulated: ___________________________________________
Attach to Application for Certification
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 18
CCPAC MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION AND RENEWAL MEMBERSHIP FORM
 Place a check mark below indicating if this is a new application or renewal:
[ ] NEW APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP IN CCPAC [ ] MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
Place a check mark below to indicate the one membership type that you are applying for:
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Renewal as: CCP or HCCP (NOTE: You must already be Certified or an HCCP as HCCP qualification enrollment is no longer
open) - $50 membership dues annually
New or renewal membership as Associate Member (non-certified) –- $50 membership dues annually
Co-Sponsor Organization – A Co-Sponsor Organization is an association, fraternal organization or educational institution that
provides programs that contribute to or otherwise enhance the goals of CCPAC. (only CCP’s & HCCP’s of the Co-Sponsoring
Organization are voting members, all others are non-voting) - $200 membership dues annually or $1,000 one time payment.
Corporate Sponsor Membership – A Corporate Sponsor is a company or professional firm whose has 5 or more employees
engaged in the handling, administration and/or negotiation and settlement of cargo claims, cargo loss prevention and security.
The Corporate Sponsor Membership covers the annual membership dues of all the members of the firm engaged in cargo claim
and security related work whether the employee is a CCP, HCCP or an Associate member up to 10 members of the
organization. Each additional person over ten, $35 annual dues is added to the cost of the basic Corporate Membership rate. Only
those members who are CCP’s or HCCP’s of the Corporate Sponsor are voting members, all others are non-voting - $250 dues
annually for basic membership (5-10 members).
FIRST NAME
MI
LAST NAME
BIRTH DATE
Place a check mark next to the profession that best describes your job.
[ ] Logistics [ ] Motor Carrier [ ] Air Carrier or Forwarder [ ] Shipper / Manufacturer [ ] Lawyer /Paralegal
[ ] Ocean Carrier [ ] Freight Forwarder [ ] Warehouse [ ] Rail Carrier [ ] Package or Expedited Carrier
[ ] Other, explain:
FIRM NAME
YOUR POSITION
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
COUNTRY
work
home
PHONE NUMBER
FAX NUMBER
E-MAIL ADDRESS
work (
)
work (
)
work
home (
)
cell (
)
home
Unless otherwise indicated we will contact you at your business. If you prefer to receive your mail at home check here [ ].
Upon receipt and approval of your completed application and payment of your annual membership dues, you will be provided a temporary password via email to access the secure side of our Member’s Area’. Once you enter the first time you will be prompted to
set your own password in your member file.
Pay on-line at www.ccpac.com with a major credit card or mail check (DO NOT SEND CASH) and application to:
CCPAC Membership Dept. • P. O. Box 550922 • Jacksonville, FL 32255-0922
2009 Fall Conference Special Edition, Page 19