Last Friday, I picked up a load, going about 30 miles, just a local run. The shipper gave me my papers and I was on my way. Went for delivery on Monday and they refused to take the shipment because the seal was missing. I contacted the broker and they said to dispose of it and they are filing a claim against my insurance in the amount of about 12,000. I have had the load for over a week now. Nothing at all was damaged, it is salt in boxes. Do I have any recourse here or what do I do. I called the shipper and he admitted that he went back out to put seal on but I was already gone, so they know he did not seal it. I looked up a ton of stuff and it seems like the consignee should have accepted it. Any thoughts?
Consignee rejected load because seal was missing.
- Thread starter lelumi
- Start date
If the BOL says anything about a seal, and you didn't have a sealed load when you arrived, its on you. Live and learn. The bigger concern is your insurance is going to have a claim filed against it for $12,000!
Sent from my SM-N910P using EO Forums mobile app
Sent from my SM-N910P using EO Forums mobile app
Does it say anywhere on the paperwork it requires a seal? A space on the BOL to enter a seal number? It's a nuisance but I'd ask every single shipper if they have a seal for the load. They may have forgotten to pick it up or whatever and it will save you. I'd even get some and carry with me just in case. Good luck resolving it.
One can claim any value they want. That is much different than whether you can collect that said value. If there is no seal number wrote by the shipper on the BOL, who is to say they put one on? Sounds like silly business to me.
If nothing else, it looks like you, and everyone you know, are set for life for salt.
Hopefully you recorded this conversation, "I called the shipper and he admitted that he went back out to put seal on but I was already gone, so they know he did not seal it."
Unfortunately, a recording of any conversation is inadmissible in court unless the other party was informed of being recorded beforehand
Sent from my SM-N920V using EO Forums mobile app
Sent from my SM-N920V using EO Forums mobile app
In most cases, that's incorrect. It depends on the state in which the recording took place. Eleven states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington (although, Illinois is in question, as their two-party consent law was found to be unconstitutional). All of the other 38 states and the District of Columbia, as long as one party involved in the conversation knows it is being recorded, it's perfectly legal.
Yes it is legal, but a good attorney will be able to bar its admission as evidence. It can be used as collaborative evidence in a criminal trial but not a civil court
Sent from my SM-N920V using EO Forums mobile app
Sent from my SM-N920V using EO Forums mobile app
And even when entered in the trial record it can never be used as conclusive evidence
Sent from my SM-N920V using EO Forums mobile app
Sent from my SM-N920V using EO Forums mobile app
Of course it can be entered as evidence. It happens all the time. And in many cases, it is conclusive. If wife records her husband admitting he cheated on her, he's screwed. If someone gets recorded admitting they robbed a bank, they're going to jail.
Audio evidence is subject to the sane rules of evidence as any other submitted evidence, but also must satisfy the predicate rules of the state. Meaning, you have to demonstrate that the voice on the tape actually belongs to the person you are claiming, not someone impersonating them, show that the recording device you used was capable of making an accurate recording, prove that the recording is a true and accurate representation of the conversation, and verify that the recording has not been tampered or altered in any way.
Audio evidence is subject to the sane rules of evidence as any other submitted evidence, but also must satisfy the predicate rules of the state. Meaning, you have to demonstrate that the voice on the tape actually belongs to the person you are claiming, not someone impersonating them, show that the recording device you used was capable of making an accurate recording, prove that the recording is a true and accurate representation of the conversation, and verify that the recording has not been tampered or altered in any way.
Anyway, ohiomike08 and beachbum are correct, if there was a seal number then the onus is on the driver to make sure it is attached before leaving, if not, then not only should the insurance claim be denied, the shipper should still be billed for the run.