Who’s Liable When Freight Bills Go Unpaid | Episode 319

SPEAKER_05: 0:19

Welcome back. It's another episode of the Freight 360 podcast. We are up to 319. It feels like just yesterday we started recording these, but come a long way. We've got special guests again today. It feels like we've been doing a lot of guests on the show lately, which is awesome because we're able to bring in folks who are experts in their field and you know we have a little knowledge on, but um this is good. We're gonna talk more on the the freight collections and and legality of certain situations today. We've got Christina Belleval back with us again. She joined us last month. So, Christina, welcome back to the show. How are you today?

SPEAKER_00: 0:53

Good, good, thank you, Nate. Uh, good morning to all.

SPEAKER_05: 0:56

Awesome. Good morning. And we are joined by Edgar Davison, uh, another Freight Collections um specialist, as I might say. So, Edgar, welcome to the show. For those that don't know you, which probably most of our listeners aren't familiar with you, just a quick rundown on who you are and what you do, and we'll dig more into your specialty alongside Christina um throughout the episode today.

SPEAKER_03: 1:18

Sure. Um, I'm Edgar Davison. Thank you, Nate. Um, I am uh I have my own firm, Davison Law Firm. We specialize in um freight collections for um motor carriers for trucking companies. I'm also general counsel for Baxter Bailey and Associates, uh nationwide freight collection agency.

SPEAKER_05: 1:40

Awesome. Well, we appreciate you both being on the show today because the the uh collections and and legal side when it comes down to payments and whatnot. Ben and I have sat in the broker's seat. We've we you know we both um have been exposed to the carrier side too, but the uh the legality of it all is not necessarily our expertise. So we appreciate you guys. Ben, what's going on in Florida today?

SPEAKER_01: 2:02

Man, nice weather. Fall. Finally outside of summer, football season's underway. It was a good weekend. I was surprised the Steelers won it.

SPEAKER_05: 2:10

So I was down there last week and it was great weather. I mean, it had like the occasional rain here and there, but like you can't ask for anything better than like 80 degrees and sunny, and you get a little overcast and whatnot, but just wonderful versus like going in July when all you're all you're wanting to do is run to the closest building that's got air conditioning. So yeah, yeah. Um, quick little uh sports here. The World Series wrapped up. It was a it was a good one. Seven game series. Um, here's what I thought was interesting. It was game, I think it was game four, went like 18 innings and set the record for the longest, like time-length longest World Series game ever. And it broke the record of the night before my wedding seven years ago, which was also game four. They won 18 innings when my my Red Sox lost to the Dodgers, the same team. So the Dodgers, uh, and by the way, I set up for both of those games, um, just to just to see uh LA basically have a a you know a victory for them. But you know, anyone from I'm I'm in Buffalo and the Blue Jays are uh we are the farm team for the Blue Jays, so you got a lot of lot of Jays fans here. So once the Red Sox and the Yankees are knocked out, pretty much everybody uh hops on the on the Jays bandwagon. But uh seven games, and I really thought the uh the Blue Jays were gonna win it. They were up like in the eighth inning, and then um Dodgers tie it up, goes to what did it go to like 11 innings or something like that. Edgar, did you see game seven? Um I did not stay awake. Okay, but yeah, the J then the Jays won it, and um yeah, just I was root I was rooting for the Blue Jays, but uh Okay, gotcha. Um, Ben, football, Steelers, man.

SPEAKER_01: 4:04

Yeah, I was shocked. Yeah, honestly, and I was I rarely bet on sports anymore, but I almost put a bet on the Colts actually, and I couldn't get in the hard rock app, which is like the only one that works in Florida because literally the kickoff was, and I was talking to my dad, and he's like, dude, I can't believe they're getting three points. I'm like, there's no way they cover. And I'm like, I was telling my wife, I'm like, I'm like, this is probably like literally the only game I felt like I wanted to bet on all year. I'm like, well, I didn't get it in any way, so hopefully the Steelers win. I was like literally shocked. I was like, wow. And then obviously watching the Bills beat Kansas City was a nice little uh Yeah, man.

SPEAKER_05: 4:41

Uh so I was at that game. That that felt good. Um, I will say this that like it it it really felt like in a typical Bills-Chiefs game, um, the Bills tend to lose not to the Chiefs, but to the refs, and the the refs, you know, they played fair. They played fair on Sunday. So um yeah, good uh good showing by the Bills there. Kansas City's in a rough spot right now. They're like third in their division, not even in a wild card spot. So Edgar, did you see that one at all? Bills Chiefs?

SPEAKER_03: 5:13

Uh a little bit, yeah. My uh uh my partner, she's a uh Swifty, so that makes her a Chiefs fan. A Chiefs fan, of course.

SPEAKER_05: 5:22

All right, fair enough. Christina, are you an NFL girl at all?

SPEAKER_00: 5:27

No, not at all.

SPEAKER_05: 5:28

Okay, alrighty. Um, Ben, speaking of the Colts, I don't know if you saw like the yesterday was a trade deadline for the NFL. So you had the Colts like got uh Sauce Gardner from the from the Jets. The Jets basically just like dumped their entire team, but they got a ton of first and second round picks in the next couple years. So um who knows? We'll see what happens. Um, in news, I think the big one, the biggest thing that this came out last week with from the FMCS or from DOT really, Secretary Duffy said he's gonna start putting the responsibility for the you know, the non-domiciled CDLs. Um he's gonna put it on the shippers too, right? Saying that not only do carriers have to conform, but shippers need to be responsible for knowing who they're loading. And that's a really interesting situation because that kind of like inadvertently loops brokers into the equation, Ben. I don't I don't know if what if you had any thoughts on it? I know me and Steven kind of texted offline about it, but where do you think this uh how do you think it pans out?

SPEAKER_01: 6:30

From I mean, it's all anecdotal, but I've definitely heard from folks at larger brokerages that they're getting way more strict on this in regards to verifying English proficiency with driver check calls. But I don't, I mean, honestly, I don't know. I have a really hard time with the liability being pushed towards brokers or shippers because the FMCSA is just so far behind in really doing anything and the information available to do any of this is just not there. And it's like, how do you hold either party accountable when it is nearly impossible to be able to verify either of those things?

SPEAKER_05: 7:11

The other thought I had too is like, what if the shipper's not actually the the customer who owns blind BOO?

SPEAKER_01: 7:17

Yeah, like that happens all the time.

SPEAKER_05: 7:18

You've got all kinds of situations where like literally someone else, like the receiver might be the actual customer who scheduled the truck to go pick up at some location, and the location that's you know, the the actual quote unquote shipper, they have no idea, you know, how the truck was vetted or you know, any of that driver level information.

SPEAKER_01: 7:38

So it's like yeah, and then the other piece, like I've seen again, it's just basically anecdotal people talking about it, but like I don't really understand the actual ELP. Like, what is the standard for English language proficiency? Is that super clear? Is it something that like a shipper would be able to even like execute or do, right? Because I don't know, like being able to determine language proficiency is rather subjective, I think, for a lot of different reasons. So I I don't know how you actually would do that.

SPEAKER_05: 8:15

But I'd be willing to bet there's some sort of test similar to like when you go and try to get like your learner's permit or your license. There's the red part. I'm assuming there's something along you know along those lines, is my guess. But I don't know. I think I think it's all fluff. Like it's you know, you get a lot of like just uh the you know, kind of like the the media effect, like hey, I'm gonna say this, but in reality, you know, what are we gonna do? So I don't know. Anyway, and then you had the uh did you see the the plane crash and in Kentucky last night at the end of the day?

SPEAKER_01: 9:38

Yeah, it was UPS, wasn't it?

SPEAKER_05: 9:40

Yeah, UPS.

SPEAKER_01: 9:41

So seven people, I think, confirmed so far, um died in the crash, but it also crashed into a warehouse. And I think as of this morning, like two or three of the workers at the warehouse were still missing and they were still pulling together information on it.

SPEAKER_05: 9:56

Yeah, sad to see that, man. Crazy. Like you got a fully loaded um plane with fuel to go to Hawaii, right? And it it crashes on takeoff. So a lot of uh lot of jet fuel just burning up there.

SPEAKER_01: 10:11

So I think it was 38,000 gallons, is what I saw this morning. That's nuts.

SPEAKER_05: 10:17

So well, sad to see, but uh hopefully, you know, hopefully there's uh minimal fallout after after the fact on that one. So um, all right. Well, let's let's get into um collections here. So I know Christina, we talked with with you in quite detail last month, and now we've got Edgar on today. So um Edgar, you you shared with us your uh your outline. Um you what do you call like your elevator pitch on like this is what I do, right? So I'm I wanted to kind of set the stage a little bit with um, you know, what is what is it that you do specifically at your practice? I know you mentioned you're also with Baxter Bailey, but just kind of um lay it out for us, and then Ben and I got some questions for you and some situations we kind of want to talk through.

SPEAKER_03: 11:01

Um sure. Um can you hear me okay? We got you. Yeah. Okay. Um, yeah, I'm uh um general counsel for Baxter Bailey and Associates, but um, you know, uh as a part of our process, once um a claim goes through collections, it comes to me, so then at that point I determine uh if a case needs to be litigated. Um at that point I have to analyze the the uh the bill of ladings and rate confirmations and all the shipping documents to determine whether you know the shippers and constantis have liability and and if the the broker or any other third parties have have liability. Um so that's basically my job, you know, I determine what jurisdiction that the case needs to be filed in. Um you know, we send a lot of matters to Christina in Texas, and you know, if I can file it myself, I do. I'm licensed in Tennessee and Arkansas, so um in those states I will file. Uh, but we work with attorneys all all across the nation to file these. But let me ask you this.

SPEAKER_05: 12:21

On that note, what determines the state in which it would be filed? Is that based on the like the headquarters of the shipper or of the carrier, or what what what does that look like?

SPEAKER_03: 12:34

That's a very good question. And it can't, you know, we could talk all day about jurisdiction, uh, especially in transportation, um, because you have usually three or four different parties in three or four different states um for an interstate shipment. You know, you could file it where the shipper is, uh potentially, you could file it where the broker is, potentially. Uh some cases you have two brokers. Um so that could be two different states. You could file it where the consonee is, the receiver of the goods. Um there's also the potential you could file it where um the carrier is located as well. So you have you know several jurisdictions that you could pick from in any given um inner interstate um shipment. Now in an intra-state shipment, which is within the you know, state borders, one state, and obviously you're gonna file it in the state that it was shipped in.

SPEAKER_05: 13:45

Okay. Gotcha. So and I wanna kinda remind folks if they if they haven't uh listened to the last episode, the one of the big things that Christina hit on is like if you're gonna go to the if you're gonna go the legal matter of collections, right? Let's say we'll go the let's say it's just a carrier directly with a a shipper, right? If you're gonna go the legal route of collections on a customer, you have, for all intents and purposes, like you've kissed that relationship goodbye. Like it's not, it is not going to be revived once you've you know serve uh legal papers to your customer, or you have, you know, you have so a lawyer attorney serve legal papers to your customer, right? So um I want to ask both of you, you know, do you when it comes to like a client of yours that's like, yeah, this is unpaid, and they're they're trying to figure out, you know, do we go the legal route? Is there like a percentage that they're able to work out without legal matters? Or, you know, I guess what does that look like when you cross that line of like, yep, we're gonna sue them? Does that question make sense? Yes, it does. Um, and and um I have to. And the reason I ask is i i as a broker, right? Like we try everything we can before we're like, we're saying this to collectionists. Because we know as soon as we do it, like we're never gonna work with that customer ever again. That's our assumption, at least.

SPEAKER_03: 15:09

Yeah, yeah. And what what you're talking about is a business decision. And and that's something that that you certainly have to consider, um, you know, instead of just the pure legalities of it. I mean, you may have a a strong legal case, but you don't want to tie it, you don't want to uh sever that business relationship. And like you said, once you file that suit, uh that relationship is probably uh not salvageable. Um but I have situations where where we've already filed suit or um prior to suit where a shipper or a broker uh will come to me and say, Hey, we'll g you know we'll agree to to give you, you know, future loads or or whatever if you drop this. Um some kind of you know equitable deal like that. Um that happens fairly often, actually. Um so that's something that certainly we will consider if the client or the carrier really wants to to work with the broker and not not sever those ties. Or if we represent a broker and it's the the other way around.

SPEAKER_00: 16:31

Uh I would also add that when you have a collections agency working on your behalf, it is more likely to uh separate yourself from the collection agency and let the client know, for instance, that I I can't absorb this debt on my own and I need to send this out for collections, but future loads we can we can continue working with you because you have sort of a buffer. Uh you're not suing them directly, it's Baxter Bailey that's suing them on your behalf, but they they got an assignment from you.

SPEAKER_05: 17:08

That's interesting. Yeah, kind of like the concept of like I'm not I'm not the bad guy, but you know exactly what makes the most business sense for me is to go this route and you know they're gonna they're gonna be the quote unquote you know bad beast knocking on your door. So right.

SPEAKER_03: 17:25

Good concept. That's a that's a that's a very good point. You know, once it cut once it goes to Baxter Bailey or some other collections agency, it's generally assigned. So, you know, that the the uh carrier a lot of times is not even the named plaintiff. It'll say like Baxter Bailey as a as the knee of you know whatever trucking company, ABC trucking company, um or even just Baxter Bailey versus you know, whatever shipper or broker. Um so that's a good point Christina made.

SPEAKER_01: 18:03

And I think what's gonna be helpful too is like let's just go through the most common situation for anyone that isn't kind of familiar with how these play out, right? So it's like shipper gives the load to a broker, broker books a carrier, broker talks to the carrier, broker runs the load, load is delivered, everything is fine. Broker then gets an invoice from the carrier they believe that ran the load. Okay. And in some cases, there's even tracking involved. So from every point of view, the carrier, I mean, the broker looks, verified the trucking company, looked at the insurance, tracked the MC, load is delivered, then the carrier sends the broker an invoice with the POD, the proof of delivery signed. The broker then pays the carrier, and then broker sends the invoice to the shipper, shipper pays the broker, everyone is moved on, moving other business, right? And almost all these, what we see is like 45 days later, an email comes from a carrier that says, Hey, I ran that load for you, broker. You owe me money. And then the broker goes and looks at their TMS and goes, I don't know who this carrier is.

SPEAKER_05: 19:09

Or the customer because they the carrier doesn't know who the broker is, right? And they go, I know I picked up here. And the customer's like, Mr. Broker, like, dude, take care of this. I already paid this, I already paid you guys on that.

SPEAKER_01: 19:21

Every one of these I've seen, it was initiated by the customer, where you get an email from the customer that has a carrier and copy and says, Hey, because the carrier knows they picked up the load. So they reach out to the facility, they go, Hey, this is the PO I moved for you on this date. Here's the POD. I haven't been paid. And then every the broker is looking at it like, I don't know who this is, what happened. The shipper goes, Hey, take care of this. I've already paid you. So the shippers paid the broker, broker has paid the carrier. They believed ran the load for multiple reasons. Tracking, spoke to them, verified it, and got a POD from another carrier. Now all of a sudden there's another carrier that comes up and says, Well, now you owe me money. And the shipper goes, I already paid you broker. I'm not paying twice. So then the broker then has to usually make the decision of, do I pay this second carrier or how do I verify that this is true in the first place, right? So I know in a lot of these scenarios, the broker will ask the new carrier that has shown up and said, I ran this freight and didn't get paid. Hey, can you send me an ELD? Can you send me some verification that I can see that shows you ran this, just so that like we understand and can kind of work through this? Then you get them. And then normally in these scenarios, like Nate said, and I think, you know, also at your point, I was like, most of the time the brokers will make a business decision, realize that this carrier ran the load, Go will find out that something fraudulent happened with the carrier you believed ran the load, and usually either pay that second carrier or that's when you guys get involved. And like from there, can you kind of explain to people how and who is responsible and why, right? Because you have a carrier that clearly ran that load, right? Did not get paid, and then you guys get involved. And then this is where I think a lot of confusion is on the broker side and the shippers of like, well, that's not our fault. We paid this other carrier, we don't know who this is. Who is responsible for making sure that carri gets paid? And I guess why, for anyone out there trying to understand them.

SPEAKER_03: 22:11

Okay. Um, yeah, in the situation where the carrier is not paid, um both the shipper and the consinee, which is the receiver of the goods, can be liable legally. Um the bill of lading is the controlling document on on all interstate shipments. Uh, and every load has to have a bill of lading, uh, which lists the shipper and consinee uh and the carrier. The controlling case on this is Oak Harbor versus Sears. It says that the consanee shipper and broker are jointly liable for unpaid freight charges to the carrier. Uh so based on the law, the carrier, if they're not paid by a broker, um, then they can go back to the shipper and say, Hey, you know, your broker did not pay, I need paid for this load, and and can legally uh go forward against the the shipper uh uh and the consanee. Uh there's there's more um more law. Um uh there's a statute that that makes the consonant liable as well. Um but in that situation, uh, like you said earlier, the shipper's gonna go back to the broker and say, Hey, I already paid this. I paid you, you were supposed to pay the carrier.

SPEAKER_05: 23:39

Um so in that in that case law was there was a broker involved in the middle? Correct. So the the shipper paid the broker, the broker never paid the motor carrier.

SPEAKER_03: 23:50

That's correct. Okay. That's that's that's the situation we run into daily. I mean, that's what you know Christina and I do for a living. Um and you know, there's a case it's uh it's called Excel. Uh the truck lines, it's um it states that the bed bedrock rule of carriage is absent malfeasance, the carrier gets paid. So there's a public policy. Um what does that mean like uh non-legal speak? Yeah, uh it's basically if the carrier didn't do something wrong or or scammy or you know, was not a part of of of the scam, um uh then they should get paid for hauling the load. And you know, the policy or the public policy um consideration is this carrier spent their you know, time, uh money, fuel costs, uh labor uh to haul the load, and and everybody got their their services provided to them, but the the carrier you know is out money. So it's not equitable that the carrier gets siffed in that situation.

SPEAKER_05: 25:13

Let me ask this, because in a situation like that, why wouldn't the carrier just file on the broker's bond? Or is it in most cases the brokerage is out of business?

SPEAKER_03: 25:23

The bro the broker the carrier generally will file on the broker's bond, um but you run into a situation even on the$75,000 bond, if if this broker has multiple debts that they have not paid, which is the case with many of these, uh the carrier's gonna get pennies on the dollar. Uh they're not gonna be made hold whole for the shipments they're making.

SPEAKER_05: 25:53

So then they can go file the remaining amount on the shipper. Is that okay? All right. That's correct. I mean, like the what I've seen when I've seen these play out in the past, like usually a broker mismanages money. I saw this a ton during COVID, where like, you know, money was great, everyone was doing well, you know, and then all of a sudden, like rates dropped, and a lot of brokerages that didn't know how to manage their money couldn't afford all the stuff that they were paying for when the money was good. They had this sweet office and this sweet car and all the, you know, going on. They're just blowing money, right? And then all of a sudden, when rates are down and they can't keep cash flow up, they're like, they're trying to like slow pay carriers and trying to make it up. And next thing you know, they're like, we gotta shut the doors, right? And I've heard carriers saying, like, we filed on the bond and we didn't get, you know, we either got nothing or we got, like you said, pennies on the dollar. Yeah. So that makes sense.

SPEAKER_03: 26:47

And that happened that happens all the time, and it's very rare that a carrier gets made entirely whole from filing on the bond. You know, uh, ideally, you know, the they will, but uh it rarely happens because there's gonna be if a if a broker uh goes out of business, there there's not just one carrier that's owed.

SPEAKER_01: 27:14

Here's the other two questions I'm I'm curious, right? Is we talked about this uh like off-air, is the other really common thing we see in the industry is broker books a carrier, that carrier gives that load to another carrier, right? Now, like it's commonly referred to as a double brokering, but I think it's better defined as like unlicensed brokering because a motor carrier's fraudulent brokerage activities is how the TIA has coined the term. So that means, hey, I book a carrier and that carrier gives the load to another carrier. Well, that carrier doesn't have the license to arrange transportation with another entity. And the carrier okay, go ahead.

SPEAKER_03: 27:56

Well, sometimes those the scams will have um a broker at the brokerage authority and a carrier authority, and that's how the scams ran.

SPEAKER_01: 28:06

Dual MCs. And then there's a second one too that I want to talk about where like I book a carrier, that carrier then impersonates a legitimate brokerage to book a legitimate carrier, right? And then that carrier doesn't get paid. But to just separate them for a second, right? Like I book a carrier, that carrier gives a load to another carrier, right? How or what does that complicate things, make it more or less difficult for the carrier that actually ran the load to be able to get paid? If they are willfully taking a load from another motor carrier, does that make it easier or harder for them to be able to collect on an undue freight charge?

SPEAKER_03: 28:43

Yeah, I'll let Christina take this one. This it's a good question.

SPEAKER_00: 28:48

My experience is that it does make it harder for the carrier uh to collect under that scenario because uh you should know the law. And the law says that carriers can't broker loads. So if you take a load from another carrier, you run the risk that you won't not be able to collect from the shipper or the consignate. But in some instances, shipper and consignate do not know that that was a carrier that gave the load to another carrier. So it's not going to prevent collections always, but it's going to make it more difficult.

SPEAKER_01: 29:23

Right. And that's one of the reasons why when we talk about this, is like we have a lot of carriers that listen to the show that we work with that like this is just a really good best practice to be aware of when you're doing business, right? Where and verifying who you're getting business from. Because the thing I was curious is you said this a moment ago, Edgar was an absence of malfeasance, right? So I was looking up legal definition of malfeasance, right? To like literally read what that is. And again, this is literally Google. So correct me if I'm wrong, but it's unlawful or wrongful act, right? But misfeasance is neglect, right? And is there a difference? Because in one, if I'm a carrier and I take a load from another carrier, to me, that is at the very least a wrongful act, maybe not unlawful, but it is certainly not legitimate, I would say, right?

SPEAKER_03: 30:11

Like And you know, that's a that's a good question. I think that's a that's a factual question, you know, where what um you know how you know how what what is malfeasance really, you know, and what acts constitute malfeasance, and that's not really defined. Um but I think um that really the the if the carrier's not actively doing something, you know, fraudulent or uh involved with the scam, then I I think they they do deserve payment. You know, to what extent um is an omission by the carrier grounds for non-payment is a, you know, it's really a question for the court or the jury if it gets that far.

SPEAKER_01: 31:05

Yeah, and the reason I say this is like Nate and I talk about two things that are probably like the simplest things that can avoid this for people operating in the industry, right? From the broker side, making a phone call to the FMCSA phone number and sometimes the previous one to verify you're still doing business with the company you think you are. And the same thing from the carrier side, right? And every one of these that I've worked through for a carrier that has reached out, like, hey, can you help me with this? What should my next steps be? Is like, I'll look at the rate con and there'll be a broker's name on it. And the first thing I look at is is the domain correct? Or is that really the brokerage you thought you were doing business with? Or literally just making a phone call to that brokerage and saying, Hey, does this person work there? And in a lot of these, they're like, Oh, yeah, that broker doesn't work here. And oh, that's not our email address or our domain. It is like one letter off. So the carrier, right, being the victim of Fraud thought they were doing business with a legitimate brokerage, but that person didn't really work there. The domain was fraudulent and the websites were not accurate, right? And again, like if I'm doing business as a carrier with a new broker, just that phone call to verify that who you got the load from is from that company and is legitimate, I think could avoid a lot of these things for them, right?

SPEAKER_00: 32:17

Also, another thing that carriers should do is check on the safer webpage if their bond is still active. Because if their bond is canceled, they're they already started not paying.

SPEAKER_01: 32:28

Yes.

SPEAKER_03: 32:29

Oh, that's a great points. Very yeah. And and for and for uh the you know what we call the the the lead broker, the legitimate broker, uh, when you're you know when you're you know hiring a carrier, you go on safer and you see that a truck that they have you know a few trucks but no inspections whatsoever, I mean that should raise some red flags. Yes.

SPEAKER_05: 33:01

And I think, yeah, I think over the last few years, our tools and our processes and our you know just self-education on these scams, I think it's come a long way, and we're doing a better job as as brokers to vet carriers. I think a lot of times the victims in a lot of these cases is the the owner operator who you know doesn't have the time or the technology to try and vet every broker out, and they choose to just blindly trust um whoever they're talking to, right? So, yeah. I mean, I think on the on the broker side, we've we've done a good job at it, but it I I still think it's gonna be a really tough thing for some of these smaller carriers that just they yeah, like I said, they just don't have the time or the capability to go as in-depth as we do as brokers. Because we sit behind a computer all day long, they're behind the wheel the majority of the time. And it's really difficult.

SPEAKER_01: 33:56

So numbers on this. Like what's great caviar had this out this morning. So the estimates, the most recent estimates I've read were literally this morning, they were talking about new scams that are being perpetrated like across the whole supply chain. And the newest estimate was$32 billion in 2025, which was likely a 25% increase over last year, right? So it's literally like eight more billion dollars was stolen in either funds to carriers, right, brokers, or just outright cargo theft, right? Just over last year. So like this is not getting, this is not getting better. It's getting worse, and more people are becoming victims of these things, right?

SPEAKER_05: 34:42

Yeah. I so I've got a um another question, a little, a little pivot here, but one of the things that we're often asked to do as brokers as a value add to our customer is to they're like, hey, can you just, you know, can you get the BOL created for me and and send it over, right? So that's one of the things that we'll often do. And I'm curious, the box that says third-party charges, right? If we if the broker, if the broker's information goes in there, does that have any weight at all to liability to pay the motor carrier listed on that bill of ladings? I know we said the bill of lading is a legal document, right? It's gonna have the shipper, the consanee, and potentially third-party charges. And even there's a box for prepaid. So I'm curious, where does all of that play into um when it comes, you know, when the rubber meets the road, who's liable in the situation where maybe prepaid is checked, but it wasn't prepaid, or maybe a broker's listed as third party? How does that how does that pan out?

SPEAKER_03: 35:39

Um, good question. These are very good questions because the you know, the bill of lighting is is so important um to collecting freight charges. Um as far as third party, um you know that just makes in my opinion, that makes extra liabil, like almost extra liability on whoever's in the third party. But legally, they're not a shipper or consonee, so they're not technically um um liable under the the case law. But I would say there that once somebody is entered into the you know bill third party, um that that company is a part of the the bill of lighting, which is the contract um between the parties. Uh so uh I I would argue that that that party is liable.

SPEAKER_01: 36:40

Um so I have a question. Uh just on that before you go beyond that, like what are some best practices? Because in some cases, like the shipper asks the broker to create the bill of lading, right? And in some cases, the broker puts their company name on the bill of lading, in some cases, the shipper's name is on that bill of lading, in some cases, the consanee's on it, and neither are, right? Are there any things that you could say like should be happening that make, I would say, are best practices for just bills of lading, right? Are there increased liability if the broker is creating the bill of lading, right? Should they make sure it's not their company name on it? Should they make sure it's the shippers? Should the carrier be writing their name on the bill of lading for the POD? What are some of the things that people, I guess, should be aware of related to that?

SPEAKER_03: 37:26

I mean, I I I don't think a broker should put their information um on the bill of lading. You see it all the time. You see the broker's name in the carrier box. That's not proper. Uh the actual carrier should be listed as the carrier on the bill of lading. And carriers need to make sure that their name is on the bill of lading, even if if the broker's name is printed on the box. I think you know, the shipper, the actual shipper of the product needs to be in the shipper box. The receiver of the product needs to be in the consony box. Now, you if you want to put bill to third party and and and put your information in just uh to assist uh uh the other parties, I don't think that hurts you, but I do think it it uh it could potentially uh create liability uh based upon the contractual bill of lading. Yeah, the re the reason I've seen that go ahead, Christina.

SPEAKER_00: 38:34

Wait, I wanted to add that for the shipper to be excluded from liability under the bill of lading, there's what's called the section seven or non-recourse provision. So if you are the shipper and you don't want you do not want to be liable for those shipping charges, you should check that box or sign your name where it says non-recourse section seven. And then prepaid is a defense for the consignee, as long as the consignee can demonstrate that they in fact prepaid that shipment.

SPEAKER_05: 39:06

Where is that not?

SPEAKER_00: 39:07

The consignee wants to be released from liability, they have to check the prepaid box and they have to save evidence that they in fact prepaid.

SPEAKER_02: 39:14

Okay.

SPEAKER_00: 39:15

But another catch is that if both section seven and prepaid are checked, they invalidate both, and then everyone's liable. So the carrier's gonna get paid by one.

SPEAKER_05: 39:26

What is the section seven part? I'm not familiar with that. Is that on a on a bill of lading?

SPEAKER_00: 39:31

In the standard bill lading, you look at the portion that says non-recourse or section seven, it says that the shipper is not liable and the carrier has to collect from the consignee.

SPEAKER_05: 39:42

See, this is Ben, and this is like for the broker audience out there, right? These TMSs that are out there now that create bills of ladings, they are not all standard and have all the same stuff, right? And that's where like I've even seen I've seen systems that create a BOL that doesn't even have a place to sign, like by the at the shipper, at the receiver, and for the driver. And I'm like, I'm like, how can you pass that through as a bill of lading? And they're like, well, it's more like a POD. Um but that's interesting. So there's super helpful recourse part.

SPEAKER_01: 40:17

Well, here's the other question. Go ahead. Go ahead. No, finish that thought, Edgar, because I was gonna ask like another question came to it.

SPEAKER_03: 40:24

That uh most people don't even see um the reverse side of a bill of lading, um, which is um standard on a what they call a uniform bill of lading. There's nothing uniform anymore, though. It seems the bill of ladings are all over the place, like Nate was saying. Uh, but there used to be a standard form, and and it's still used, and you'll see it on a lot of bill of ladings. It's called a uniform bill of lading. Um, and there is a reverse side of that which has terms and conditions. Um and um but most most of the the carrier never sees that. Um yeah, they don't scan them in either.

SPEAKER_01: 41:10

Like you never see them on the invoice, it's always just the front side of it. Because I I was thinking about when you were saying section seven, I was thinking of Nate's question. I'm like, oh, I've seen the back of literal original ones that have this on there, but when we get them, it's always the scanned face of it, right, with the carrier's invoice. So like we rarely see the back end. And then to Nate's point, all these TMSs just create them with whatever information they want to put on it, which just completely unstandardized them.

SPEAKER_03: 41:36

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 41:37

But they're if you're the broker and you're creating the bill of lading, you should use the the uniform bill of lading. And since you're doing it for the shipper, you should you should sign the non-recourse provision. So if your customer isn't going to be liable, you're not going to be liable either.

SPEAKER_01: 41:54

I'm literally taking a note to do that later.

SPEAKER_05: 41:56

Yeah. Um where does one find a uniform bill of lading?

SPEAKER_00: 42:00

You can Google it.

SPEAKER_03: 42:01

You can, yeah, it's it's online. It's yeah. All right. Got some homework to do. It's pretty easy to find. Um, but yeah, there there's a box on the front um that um says subject to section seven, blah, blah, blah. That's where the shipper should sign off on it if they don't want to be liable for the freight charges. Okay. Um But Christina, like Christina was saying, uh, Bill of Ladings can be prepaid or collect. Um, and you'll see um you'll see them marked prepaid collect or third party, right?

SPEAKER_05: 42:40

Or the three boxes.

SPEAKER_03: 42:41

Yes. And and um prepaid just means the shipper is responsible for the freight charges. Collect means the consonant is liable for the freight charges. So one way one way the shipper can can get out of you know liabilities is if section seven is signed and it's a collect bill of lading. At that point, we we don't have much against the shipper at all.

SPEAKER_01: 44:26

Here's the next question: is on a third-party blind bill of lading, what and how does that either complicate it or make that less? So, like, hey, I'm the one that is buying product from Edgar, then I'm selling it to Nate, but I arrange transportation to pick up from your facility to ship to Nate, and I don't want Nate to know that it came from your facility, right? Are there best practices because like I have we have a client right now that has a large customer that this is like all they do, right? Like everything is a blind bill of lading. They're all shipping from where they purchase, right? It's in the food industry, so like they don't want their customers to know where they're sourcing it from. So the shipper's name, they don't need they don't want their customer to see because then the customer can just cut them out and order for them directly, right? So does that complicate things in any way or not? Does that change who's ultimately responsible? Since I'm arranging transportation, right? I'm technically the BCO, right? Even though I shipped it from your facility to Nate. But I don't want Nate to know it came from your facility. So are there any best practices to do in blind bills of lading?

SPEAKER_03: 45:36

I think it would turn on who was who issued or who was named on the bill of lading, but it's also going to be determined by who's the beneficial owner of the goods.

SPEAKER_00: 45:51

Exactly. So um So even if you don't want to be identified, uh if it was a warehouse or it was someone, whatever, we're gonna pursue that party, and they're gonna say no, but we're we didn't own what you were shipping, and they're going to identify you, and then we will pursue you. Even if your name isn't in the bill of lading, you're technically the shipper.

SPEAKER_01: 46:17

Here's a question from the you're still the shipper. The question I always have is does it is it more about who arranged it? Because owner of the goods literally changes, right? Like I purchased it from Edgar, but once it got to Nate, it's FOB delivery. Nate owns the goods once he receives it. So does it matter when you're determining the owner or who's arranging the transportation?

SPEAKER_00: 46:39

So the shipper is the one who arranges the transportation, even if they're not identified as such, but the consignor is who surrenders the shipments. And the shipper and the consignor are jointly and severally liable. Got it. So but if you can demonstrate that you're just an agent, that you are not the true shipper, then the warehouse is gonna get out, or whoever was selling it on your behalf, it's gonna go out.

SPEAKER_01: 47:04

So I have one last question.

SPEAKER_00: 47:06

Step into the shipper shoes.

SPEAKER_01: 47:07

Got it. And that makes perfect sense, right? Like I arranged the shipment from Edgar's warehouse to sell to Nate. I'm the one that is technically the shipper, even though it was picked up from Edgar's facility, right? Now, the question I have, because we I literally ran into this last week, is it the same scenario, right? Like I arranged it from Edgar's warehouse to ship to Nate, but Edgar's the one that created the bill of lading. His team at his warehouse created the bill of lading. And the bill of lading had did not have all the information it should have had. In this specific case, they did not put the temperature on the bill of lading, the legal document. And a claim arose. And the carrier is like, well, hey, there's no temperature on the legal document. So how are you going to tell me I didn't do something you literally didn't put in writing? But I'm the shipper, but I don't I didn't create the bill of lading in this case. Like, how does responsibility get unwound in a scenario where the shipper isn't the one that's legally creating that legal document, I guess? Or should I make sure I'm creating the bill of lading to give to the carrier or to send to Edgar's warehouse to make sure he gives it to the driver? Like, how would you like procedurally should that be done? I guess is another way to ask it.

SPEAKER_00: 48:19

So in that scenario, I would say that the warehouse does have liability for the loss because they have the obligation to instruct the carrier as to what temperature it has to be maintained. The carri doesn't have any liability because they weren't given that instruction.

SPEAKER_03: 48:37

Right. There's the carrier's not contractually obligated to keep it at any temperature if they're not on notice of it. Um that's a decision. Now you define notice if it is.

SPEAKER_01: 48:48

So then the question is defining notice because the carrier had email written confirmation of what the temp should be prior to pickup, and the facility that didn't put it on the bill of lading said they verbally told the carrier, which is obviously there's no way to verify, right? So it happened in two different ways, but the email correspondence to the carrier prior to arranging this, right, at least is written, but it's certainly not on a legal document, right? And a rate con most people think is a legal document, which it isn't, right? It is the bill of lading, right? Does that in some way make that more or less clean to determine responsibility?

SPEAKER_00: 49:27

I would say it would be a fact issue at the end of the day for the court to decide, which makes it much harder on part of everyone uh to collect. But I think that the carriage may have liability in that case because they they were given notice, even if it it wasn't included in the bill of lading.

SPEAKER_03: 49:45

Yeah, uh I agree with Christina on that. That's um certainly a fact issue, and you know what it's whether that was sufficient notice to the carrier is I'm not sure. Yeah. Interesting.

SPEAKER_05: 50:01

So I did see in your notes here, and I didn't think about this, but a broker carrier agreement, or even for that matter, like a shipper a shipper broker agreement, right? We sign these all the time. If there's a clause in there that states like that the shipper basically says, like, hey, we're not uh we're not liable for you know if the broker doesn't pay or whatever, you know, is there is there any it basically it sounds like no matter what the agreement says the law trumps any of those clauses that someone would might try to put in their contract. Is that accurate?

SPEAKER_03: 50:38

Um well there's two different agreements. There's there's a broker carrier agreement and there's the broker shipper agreement. So, you know, we deal mainly with uh broker carrier agreements. Um and you know, some of those agreements have clauses in there that says, you know, you're not allowed to contact the shipper or consanee uh even if we don't pay you. You know, and it's a pretty draconian clause, but it's you know snuck in there with eight the eight-page document that that these carriers just you know basically click through and sign.

SPEAKER_05: 51:19

They don't read them.

SPEAKER_03: 51:20

But a lot of some of the courts say we don't we don't care what you know that document um uh could be voided if if you don't get paid because it really uh it's it's uh that means the broker has breached the contract essentially. They breached the whole the whole agreement by not paying you. That was a material um condition of that whole that whole agreement. Um you know, and and non-payment by the broker, uh it it's it's my always my argument that that you the carrier shouldn't be held to the broker carrier agreement if the broker does not comply with the broker carrier agreement. It's a breach.

SPEAKER_00: 52:11

Yeah, another thing is that the shipper and the concernee are not a party to that broker carrier agreement, so as third parties, it's more difficult for them to enforce that that agreement unless they can prove that the purpose of the agreement was to benefit them, which is very hard to prove.

SPEAKER_05: 52:28

I was almost thinking if like a shipper, because I mean that Ben, you and I have seen some of the most outrageous language in contracts, and I know we're not having that discussion today. Um, we've done that before, but I'm almost wondering from a broker's perspective, like if a if a shipper tried to put a clause in there that that like basically prevented them from having to double pay a shipment because we got double brokered or something like that. Like I'm almost wondering if like that's something that a shipper has ever tried to do, saying, like, hey, in our agreement broker, if you fail to pay the right person and that person then comes back to us, we're not liable to pay them. You still are. Have you guys ever has that even come up as a has that I mean?

SPEAKER_03: 53:13

So yes, um, that did come up in a very large case I'm handling right now. The carrier has no privy of contract, so the you know, the carrier can't be held to that. That's between the the shipper and the broker. Uh carrier can still go after the broker in that case. Uh there is the shipper, okay. And the shipper. I mean, yeah, I'm sorry. The carrier can still go after the shipper.

SPEAKER_05: 53:39

So the bottom line in all of this is that the shipper is responsible to pay whoever actually performed the services of transporting the goods. That's like the bottom line here. And we went down like a rabbit hole of different like scenarios and situations, and it really brings up, you know, just just thoughts on that.

SPEAKER_00: 53:57

Unless they execute the section seven, they they do have a way out.

SPEAKER_01: 54:01

Then it's the consonne, though, right? So it's one of the two, right?

SPEAKER_00: 54:05

Yes.

SPEAKER_01: 54:06

And and the thing that the way this was explained to me when I first got into the industry was at the end of the day, somebody owned something, somebody used effort and money and time to move it. The person that owned that goods benefited, the company that moved it provided the service. It doesn't matter what any of the paperwork says, who money changed hands, or what anybody did in between, at the end of the day, if the company that moved it didn't get paid, the company that benefited from having it moved is responsible, right?

SPEAKER_03: 54:34

Like, is that a fair summary of the I think I think that's a very fair summary of the the policy argument, yes. You know, you you've got a carrier that has spent time, money, uh and you know, cost labor, uh miles on the road to haul this product. Shipper, you got your product shipped, you got everything you asked for. Uh it's not fair to to stiff a carrier uh in that situation.

SPEAKER_05: 55:04

You get you before we recorded, we're recording here, you brought up you tried to compare it to like construction and subcontractors. Can you can you kind of paint that picture of how it would look in a different just a different industry so we could take ourselves out of transportation and see it from a different perspective?

SPEAKER_03: 55:21

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05: 55:22

The concept at least.

SPEAKER_03: 55:23

Right. Um so in in this case, let's see.

SPEAKER_05: 55:32

Is this like if I if I build a house and I hire a general contractor to build the house, and that general contractor subcontracts, you know, a dozen different subs, and one of the subs doesn't get paid, they can come back to me. Right. That's correct.

SPEAKER_00: 55:49

As long as they sent you a a notice of intent to file a lien and eventually file a lien, they can preserve their right to go against you.

SPEAKER_04: 55:56

Gotcha.

SPEAKER_00: 55:58

But that it is it is similar to that, but carriers don't have that that need to file the lien unless they're doing construction work or mineral liens.

SPEAKER_04: 56:09

Gotcha. Interesting.

SPEAKER_00: 56:10

But it it is an issue of equity and that the law recognizes that benefit for the carriers, and the same thing with the subcontractors.

SPEAKER_03: 56:20

All right, so always always explain it this way. Like, Nate, you hire me to mow your lawn. Uh I go out and mow your lawn, but then you pay Christina, you say here's fifty dollars for Edgar. You go pay Edgar to to to uh for mowing my lawn. Uh Christina runs off with the money. Well, you still owe me, Nate, for mowing your yard. That's a very simplified way to put it.

SPEAKER_05: 56:53

All right, so we And I think that makes so much sense too. Like I'm gonna use that analogy.

SPEAKER_03: 56:58

Kind of like kind of makes brokers look uh look bad in that essence, but I mean that's the simple that's how I explain it to like my kid. Yeah. No, that's good.

SPEAKER_05: 57:09

That's good. So Chris kind of gave her her an her opinion on like when to uh go the collections route. I'm I'm kind of curious, Edgar, just to wrap it up from your perspective, if a carrier's coming to you, you you said you don't work with brokers, or do you or do you work with brokers?

SPEAKER_03: 57:27

We represent some brokers, yeah. Okay.

SPEAKER_05: 57:30

So if a broker or a carrier is gonna come to you and say, hey, I've got you know these$100,000 in unpaid invoices um from these various different shippers or customers of mine, at what point would you advise them, yeah, we're gonna we want to go the league, you should probably go the legal route of trying to recoup the money here, versus no, um, try to work it out at a lower level because you're gonna burn the relationship.

SPEAKER_03: 57:59

Is there like a general rule of thumb? Um generally I would recommend going the collections route, such as Baxter Bailey and Associates, uh, because they can do it a lot cheaper uh first. Um and you know they're able to do the the early legwork and figure out you know which parties are potentially liable. Uh there will be some initial communications with the parties, you know, before it gets uh elevated uh for me to to get involved and file suit. Um, you know, that would be the initial steps.

SPEAKER_05: 58:39

Um and then can you figure out what can you on that note can you kind of explain just in simple terms what what happens behind the scenes on the collection side and then what happens on the filing suit side?

SPEAKER_03: 58:54

Yeah, on the collection side, you know, they'll there'll be an initial intake where the carrier has to submit all of their uh documents related to the load or loads that they're not paid on. Uh generally the collector will figure out if uh there's any bond money, if there's a bond to file on, that that will happen. Um at that point, we there's a reach out to the broker. A lot of times that broker has flown the coupe and you know they're they're out of business. Um that will be researched, what you know, what debts the broker has. You know, in a larger collection agency like Baxter Bailey, there will be some precedent usually um that they've worked with the parties in the past, even a lot of brokers, you know, that we have relationships with. Uh so we can reach out to uh what we call the lead broker, which is usually a legitimate broker and say, hey, what you know what happened here? Um is this one you you want to resolve? And a lot of times, you know, we those those get resolved within weeks. And and that's ideal for everybody if that happens. And sometimes it doesn't, and then a letter will be sent to the shipper and the consonant which elevates it further. That's like, you know, more elevation. If if it doesn't get resolved, there will be usually some emails and calls with the shipper and or consinee. If everybody um says, you know, go bite dust to the collector, then that's when it comes to me, and I have to decide whether we're going to file suit on it and send it to someone like Christina or or you know, do what we will with it. Um and at that point uh usually another demand will go out from either me or Christina and give them one more shot uh to collect. If not, then you know the complaint's filed and then you get into full-blown litigation, which is costly and um usually doesn't benefit a whole lot of parties, but I would imagine it probably doesn't get that far in most cases, though, right?

SPEAKER_05: 1:01:19

I'd say not. I'd say just because of how much it costs, right? Like I can't imagine a shipper who's very clearly owes the money is gonna be like, we're gonna go fight this. We're not paying you.

SPEAKER_02: 1:01:28

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03: 1:01:28

Yeah, and you know, the shipper has defenses. I mean, like, as we talked about, you know, they can argue, you know, uh, we signed section seven, or or or there's an estoppel argument that is really not very effective, but just flat out, we've already paid this. Um you know, courts generally reject that these days, um, but it has been attempted. They call it legally, it's called a stoppel. It's basically saying we pay we paid this once, we shouldn't have to pay again. Gotcha.

SPEAKER_05: 1:02:01

Ben, you got any things you want to ask before we wrap up?

SPEAKER_01: 1:02:05

One last question I have that I again, it's more just a curiosity, and we don't definitely need to go down a rabbit hole. But I am curious with is fraud as prevalent as it is. Are you ever seeing instances where somebody's coming to you and saying, We're owed all this money, and they actually didn't move the freight just to be able to get a shipper or a broker to pay them?

SPEAKER_05: 1:02:26

I have had that happen numerous times where like carriers they're like trying to be like, oh no, we hauled this, and we find out once we're like, yeah, we need an ELD download and all this, and then they just disappear. But like I've had that happen numerous times.

SPEAKER_03: 1:02:39

Yeah, and we take steps to vet our own clients because of that. You know, we we make sure that they did haul the load. I mean, that's why we asked for ELD lugs and and all that.

SPEAKER_01: 1:02:49

There's yeah, because I'm like, if there's a way to steal money, someone's trying to do it in the supply chain at this point in time. And I'm like, just in the back of my mind, I'm like, I feel like somebody's probably out there also trying to do this. Like, oh hey, that brokerage is going out of business. I got a bunch of bills of leading here. Okay, we're just gonna start trying to file claims against people.

SPEAKER_05: 1:03:05

Yeah, it does happen. And that's where uh to the broker community out there, uh, because it's happened to my company numerous times. If a carrier comes at you and says, like, I'm the one who actually hauled this, you like respectfully challenge them and ask for the appropriate things. Because it could be correct, right? If you failed to vet your carrier and and all that properly, you might have got stooped and got double brokered. But there are as there's also the chance, like Ben said, if there's a chance if there's scams happening out there, someone's probably out there trying to stick their hand in the pot too and and have some broker foolishly pay two trucks because they wanted to not have it go to their customer. Because that's what happened, is they they came to us and they're like, We're gonna go to your customer and demand this and you're gonna lose them, blah, blah, blah. And we're like, we're like, hey, we we want to pay you, we'll pay you, but like please provide us the following things to prove that you were the carrier, and they quickly just you know disappeared. So there is there is that ammo.

SPEAKER_00: 1:04:05

Where it was a factoring company and they purchased multiple invoices from this broker, uh and it apparently they their carrier didn't haul any loads, and they replicated uh those invoices and those uh rate confirmations using just information that wasn't accurate. And when I went against the shipper and the consumer saying those loads aren't ours, and the broker said that's that's not those are not valid rate confirmations. So it was all done by the carrier and it was done against a factoring company.

SPEAKER_05: 1:04:43

Oof. So they they duped the factoring company on that one then.

SPEAKER_00: 1:04:47

Yes.

SPEAKER_01: 1:04:48

Woof. I've seen those, and I was also really kind of surprised the more I've worked with factoring companies, that of what information like they are verifying and what they're just taking for granted, to your point, where it's just like, oh, all these loads happened. We funded all this money based on just ratecons. You're like, you can just create a rate con out of any system, it is not a legal document, there's nothing else along with it. And like, you're just funding tens of thousands of dollars based on what this TMS sent you. Like, because literally like Nate had an agent, we talked about another episode that had there was some fraud in related to like weren't they like illegitimate loads where they were like paying a carrier they knew or something that was created invoices years ago?

SPEAKER_05: 1:05:30

This is a couple years back. Yeah, basically, like had all these, you know, they weren't even real loads. He just the bunch of loads were created in our system, and he booked uh, you know, booked a legitimate trucking company in our system and then created all these EFS checks, and the EFS checks were cashed by his son. So like to the tune of like$200,000. And that's uh he's under it's part of a larger organized crime ring, and there is, I mean, agent fraud is a whole nother conversation, but yeah, like there's unless you protect yourself as a business owner and brokerage, like there's a lot of ways that you're you're you know vulnerable vulnerable from like different agents.

SPEAKER_00: 1:06:13

To the broker and confirm those votes are accurate and that they're gonna get paid. That's that's something pretty simple to do. And in this case, my client didn't do it, and they're they're off a couple of hundred thousand because of that.

SPEAKER_05: 1:06:29

Alrighty. Well, we'll have to do another episode with you guys where we talk about something positive that can uh yeah, you know, we got some some good stories, right?

SPEAKER_03: 1:06:39

So we could go on for hours, but yeah.

SPEAKER_05: 1:06:43

Well, cool. Edgar, it's good to meet you and have you on the show today. And Christina, pleasure to have you back again. Um, Christina, anything you want to wrap up with?

SPEAKER_00: 1:06:51

Oh, just letting everyone know we're here in Texas and we're available for consultation. If you want to get your freight bills paid, just reach out to me. And if you're nationwide and you you have Baxter Bailey there to help you as well.

SPEAKER_05: 1:07:08

Awesome. Yeah, we've got your uh we've got your website in the show notes too. So make sure to to check that out. And Edgar, anything you want to wrap up with?

SPEAKER_03: 1:07:18

No, uh, like Christina said, you know, if you have unpaid freight charges or any issues collecting, you can go to Baxter Bailey and Associates. Uh, you can go to my website, DavisonLawfirm.net. I have a blog that has a lot of legal information on it. Um, and that's D-A-V-I-S-O-N law firm.net.

SPEAKER_05: 1:07:41

Yeah, we'll throw a link in the show notes for yours too. That's a good point.

SPEAKER_03: 1:07:44

Yeah, it it there's a lot of articles on there that's very helpful um for what we're talking about today.

SPEAKER_05: 1:07:52

So awesome. We appreciate that. And thanks again, both of you, for being on. Ben, final thoughts.

SPEAKER_01: 1:07:57

Whether you believe you can or believe you can't, you're right.

SPEAKER_05: 1:08:01

And until next time, go bills.