|
Never mind the revenue loss...The freight claim agent was "tasked" with the responsibility for determining how much, if anything to pay the shipper for the loss of his product. The matter of loss and damage claims for grain loss was a "mystery wrapped up in an enigma"..to partially quote Winston Churchill. There was the matter, first of all to determine whether there was an actual loss or was it just a "weight variation"...or was it because of "defective equipment"..or could it have been because a grain door was improperly installed,..or perhaps the car had been "rough handled" enroute. All of these possibilities were extant when a claim for loss of product on grain was filed. Every claim agent had his own "deal" with grain shippers as to how claims were to be handled. It was a "world unto itself"...
No one was happier that the Claim agent when the covered hopper came along and simplified....in some cases eliminated claims for grain loss.
Having been Rock Island's Manager Freight Claims for 8 years I speak with a reasonable degree of experience in these matters.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirby Lambert kirby@prospectortech.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> To: CBQ <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thu, Dec 31, 2015 9:49 am Subject: [CBQ] Re: Grain Haulage Many have talked about the frequency of leakage.
That leakage would have changed the delivered quantity/weight.
Who got stuck with the revenue loss caused by the leakage, the shipper, the consignee or the RR?
Kirby Lambert
__._,_.___ Posted by: jpslhedgpeth@aol.com __,_._,___ |