Search Results

Ten members of the Cottingham & Butler Food & Agribusiness team successfully completed a robust food safety training program and achieved their designations as Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals (PCQI), the leading designation for food safety professionals. “As trusted risk consultants in the Food industry, our goal is to prepare businesses for the changing landscape and provide valuable resources that go well beyond an insurance policy,” said Ryan Venti, Food & Agribusiness Risk Management Consultant. “The more we know, the better we can serve our clients.” The preventive controls qualified individual (PCQI) certificate is crucial to the management and preparation of the food safety plan and validation of preventive controls. In order to become a preventive controls qualified individual, you must successfully complete specialized training under a standardized curriculum recognized by the FDA, which was led by instructors at the world’s leading food safety consultancy and Cottingham & Butler’s food safety partner, TAG. The expertise and knowledge will help the Cottingham & Butler Food & Ag practice continually provide value to their clients and help them better manage unique loss exposures. “With heightened regulation and complexity from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), along with the rules brought by the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), it is important, now more than ever, to understand what our clients have to go through on a daily, weekly, and yearly basis.  The Cottingham & Butler Food and Agribusiness team continues to amaze me as we further the education that allows us to bring cutting-edge ideas and expertise to our clients,” Alex Portwood, Food & Agribusiness Marketer, Risk Management Practice. Certified Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals (PCQI): Ryan Butler Brian Grant Derek Mizaur Ross Milne Madison Worzalla Alex Portwood Ryan Venti Jordan Cowhey Thomas Merfeld Chase Medinger

On Monday, October 21, 2019, Cottingham & Butler announced the appointment of Andrew Butler as the company’s new Executive Chairperson, effective immediately. Butler, who has served as Vice Chairperson, President of SISCO & HealthCorp and member of the company’s Board of Directors since 2013, will now be responsible for providing oversight and direction to the Cottingham & Butler Board of Directors and the organization as a whole. Andrew succeeds his father, John Butler, who transitioned from his role as Executive Chairperson to Chairperson and will retain an active advisory role and continue to provide guidance to the business. David Becker, President & CEO, will continue to lead the company’s overall business operations. “John’s leadership and vision since 1957, has guided Cottingham & Butler to be recognized as a strong leader in our industry,” said Andrew Butler. “Everything we do at Cottingham & Butler is about serving our clients with distinction, and David and I are excited to continue to lead a team of passionate insurance professionals that deliver on that promise every day. The opportunity that lies ahead for our colleagues and most importantly, our clients, is exceptional and we are committed to providing long‐term value well into the future.” John Butler added, “I am extremely proud of the team’s accomplishments during my tenure. It is the right time to evolve our leadership as we continue to drive innovation in the industry. Andy is a talented leader and I look forward to continuing to work with him, David, and our experienced team as Chairperson. I am confident our leadership team will take Cottingham & Butler to the next level of growth, and I am tremendously optimistic about the future we are all creating together. Our people, culture, and business plan have proven to be of great value to those we serve and have produced results that are the envy of the industry.” About Cottingham & Butler Cottingham & Butler is the 5th largest privately held insurance broker in the United States and a recognized leader in offering innovative property & casualty and employee benefit insurance solutions. The privately held organization was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dubuque, Iowa, employing over 1,000 employees across the U.S.

Press release published by The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers. David Becker, chief executive officer of Cottingham & Butler, Inc., in Dubuque, Iowa, was elected 2020 Chairman of The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers, as announced today by The Council. He succeeds Martin P. Hughes, executive chairman of the Board of Directors of HUB International in Chicago. Becker was elected during The Council’s 106th annual Insurance Leadership Forum (ILF) in Colorado Springs, Colo. The Insurance Leadership Forum has been instrumental to the commercial property/casualty insurance industry since its beginnings in 1913, and continues to be the premier industry meeting for market leaders worldwide. “Dave has made a name for himself by approaching each day with an entrepreneurial spirit focused on how to help both his employees and clients be successful,” said Ken A. Crerar, President/CEO of The Council. “He’s engaged and pragmatic, always looking for opportunities by simply talking to people and listening. He’s also one of our champions for finding better ways to recruit and develop young talent to the brokerage industry, which is very much a priority of ours. We’re looking forward to having him lead our organization in the coming year.” Since Becker started with Cottingham & Butler in January 2004, the company’s annual revenues have increased more than six-fold, propelling C&B to become one of the top 10 employers in Dubuque. C&B has also expanded its geography with Becker at the helm, with more than a quarter of C&B’s 1,000+ employees working in regional offices spread across 24 states. Prior to joining Cottingham & Butler, Becker spent eight years with McKinsey & Company in Chicago, where he was a Partner specializing in issues related to strategy and marketing. Before McKinsey, Becker worked for IBM in a sales and marketing capacity. Becker has a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and an MBA from Washington University in St. Louis, graduating magna cum laude. He also holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude. Becker serves on the Board of the Greater Dubuque Development Corporation and is a member of the Washington University Olin School of Business National Council. He is active in several civic and charitable organizations including Holy Family Catholic Schools and the Foundation for Academic & Social Excellence. As Chairman of The Council, Becker leads a team of officers including Vice Chairwoman Nancy Mellard, executive vice president and General Counsel at CBIZ in Kansas City, Mo.; Treasurer Robert J. Klonk, chief executive officer of Oswald Companies in Cleveland, Ohio, and Secretary Keith Schuler, president, and chief executive officer at InterWest Insurance Services, LLC, in Sacramento, Calif. In addition to Becker’s appointment, six were newly named to The Council’s board: Jochen Koerner, Managing Director, Ecclesia Group, Germany Kate Armfield, COO & Principal, AHT Insurance, Leesburg, Va. Chris Boone, President – P&C, BXS Insurance, Jackson, Miss. Michael Christian, CEO, Risk Strategies, Boston, Ma. Lori Goltermann, CEO, US Commercial Risk & Health Solutions, Aon, Chicago, Ill. Kyle Lingscheit, CEO, PayneWest Insurance, Missoula, Mont. The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers is the premier association for the top regional, national, and international commercial insurance and employee benefits intermediaries worldwide. Council members are market leaders who annually place 85 percent of U.S. commercial property/casualty insurance premiums and administer billions of dollars in employee benefits accounts. With expansive international reach, The Council fosters industry-wide relationships around the globe by engaging lawmakers, regulators, and stakeholders to promote the interests of its members and the valuable role they play in the mitigation of risk for their clients. Founded in 1913, The Council is based in Washington, D.C.

Complying with the reporting requirements in a claims-made policy can sometimes feel like navigating through a minefield. Claims-made policies contain a number of traps for the unwary that could leave you with no insurance coverage, so the importance of having someone in your organization trained on these policies cannot be overstated. What is a 'claims-made' policy? There are two basic types of insurance policies: occurrence-based policies and claims-made policies. Common occurrence-based policies include commercial auto, general liability, and property policies. These policies cover claims that arise out of damage or injury that took place during the policy period, regardless of when the claim is actually asserted. For example, if a customer slips and falls on your premises in 2016 but does not file a lawsuit until 2018, your 2016 general liability policy would respond. Claims-made policies operate very differently. Claims made policies cover only those claims made during the policy period, regardless of when the injury occurred (although most policies require the injury to occur after a “retroactive date” stated in the policy). For example, if an employee files a complaint with the EEOC in 2018 alleging that he was discriminated against by your company back in 2017, your 2018 employment practices liability policy would respond because that was when the claim was made. Common claims made policies include employment practices liability, directors and officers, errors and omissions, product recall, cyber, professional liability, and fiduciary policies. What are the biggest pitfalls associated with claims-made policies? Failing to recognize that a claim has been made Recognizing a claim on an occurrence-based policy is fairly easy. If your building is damaged in a storm or your employee is in an auto accident while on duty, you have a claim. Recognizing a claim on a claims-made policy is not as straightforward. Depending on the wording of your policy, all of the following can constitute a claim that must be reported to the insurer as soon as practicable: Any written demand Service of a complaint or similar pleading, Any arbitration, mediation, or other similar dispute resolution proceeding, Any criminal proceeding commenced by the return of an indictment, Any administrative or regulatory proceeding commenced by the filing of a notice of the charge, written request to interview, formal investigative order, or similar document (e.g. an EEOC, civil rights commission, or a similar notice), A written request to toll or waive a statute of limitations, A subpoena Failing to report a claim on time If a claim is made against your company in any of the above forms, you must notify your insurer as soon as practicable. If you fail to do so, the insurer can deny coverage. The following scenario illustrates a common coverage issue with claims-made policies. An officer of your company is served with a notice of charge from the EEOC on December 23rd. The officer fails to act on the notice prior to the holidays, and your insurance coverage moves to a different carrier on January 1st. After the New Year holiday, the officer reports the claim to the previous carrier. The previous carrier will deny the claim because it was not reported during the policy period. The new carrier will also deny the claim because the claim was not first made during the policy period. Your company now has no insurance coverage for this claim. What can you do to protect your company? Read your policy, and pay close attention to the definition of a “claim.” Train your employees to recognize and report claims immediately. Training on claims-made policies is available in the Cottingham & Butler Risk Management Center. Communicate with your Cottingham & Butler team if you are unsure of whether or not an event constitutes a claim. Report a notice of circumstances that may give rise to a claim. This type of notice provides a safe harbor for reporting an event that may turn into a claim in the future. This may protect you in the event that a claim arises after the expiration of the policy because you have already put the insurer on notice.

What are you charging owner-operators for damages to your trailers, cargo, or auto liability claims? The industry average is around $2,500 per line and $5,000 combined. A hefty charge for an owner-operator to handle who likely doesn’t have that kind of cash on hand. A few options trucking companies have to protect themselves and their owner-operators; escrow, post-claim, and deductible buyback. Escrow: Collect enough funds to cover these damages from the owner-operator before they take their first load. Most trucking companies take escrow in small increments from the first few settlements. While this creates better cash flow for the owner-operator, it puts the trucking company at risk of not collecting those funds if an accident occurs before the escrow is fully funded. By law, trucking companies are required to pay interest to the owner-operator on their escrow funds, which can be an administrative nightmare. Post Claim: Allow the owner-operator to make small payments on the claim after it happens. The post-claim option provides good cash flow for the owner-operator and eliminates the headache associated with escrow. However, owner-operators often part ways with the trucking company after a claim, making the post-claim process rather challenging for the trucking company. So how do you ensure you get paid? Deductible Buy Back: Allow the owner-operator to purchase an insurance policy that pays for these damage chargebacks. Around $9 of premium per week buys down $5,000 of damage deductibles. This insurance guarantees payment to the trucking company and positive cash flow for the owner-operator. Trucking companies should offer Deductible Buy Back through settlement deduction so owner-operators have easy access to purchasing this insurance.

When working with shippers, they may provide you with a contract that includes a specific list of insurance requirements that need to be fulfilled prior to doing business with them. Some examples include listing the shipper with specific limits per coverage (i.e. $1,000,000 combined single limit for Auto Liability) or being listed as additional insured on certain lines of coverage. There are many more possible requirements shippers may have, but one you may start to see more frequently is the request for a waiver of subrogation (also referred to as “transfer of rights of recovery”). What exactly is a waiver of subrogation? When requesting a waiver of subrogation from your insurance company, you are requesting your insurance company to limit or forego their rights to subrogate against a third party listed in the contract provided by the shipper in the event of a loss. As you can see, some insurance companies may be hesitant to endorse this request to your policy(ies) without reading the shipper’s contract to verify that it is, in fact, a requirement as well as encompassing the possible liabilities the insurance company (as well as the trucking company) are opening themselves up to. Some trucking companies may also be weary of requesting to endorse a waiver of subrogation on their insurance policy(ies). One option they have is to negotiate this requirement out of the contract prior to signing. While many shippers may not honor a request of this nature, it is great practice to negotiate terms in order to adequately protect the trucking company as well as their insurance company. Something to note with requesting a waiver of subrogation to be endorsed to your policy(ies) is that it may result in additional premium. Trucking companies should weigh the cost of the endorsement(s) along with the possible profit to be made working with the shipper to ensure it is profitable for their company in order to proceed. A waiver of subrogation can be added to numerous insurance coverages, such as Auto Liability, General Liability, Workers' Compensation, and Property. If there is ever a question in regards to if your current insurance policy(ies) meet contract requirements, forward the contract to your insurance agent for review. They will be able to verify which requirements are met as well as what endorsements may need to be requested in order to fulfill the contract requirements to move forward with working with shippers if desired.

Have you ever seen the words replacement cost or actual cash value on your property coverage and not understood what they meant? If so, I can assure you that you are not alone! These terms are often associated with the extremely popular property coverage. The purpose of this article is to educate you regarding valuation used in property coverage so that the next time you come across this terminology you are familiar. To start with, let’s look at defining what property essentially pertains to. Presumably, property is anything that contains value. Property consists of three categories: buildings, business personal property and personal property of others. Comprising the buildings category are items such as additions, outdoor fixtures and permanently installed machinery and equipment. Business personal property includes items located in or on the building such as furniture, fixtures, stock and all other personal property owned by you and used in your business. Lastly, personal property of others covers property that is in your care, custody or control. However, the property must be located in the building described in the declarations or within 100 feet of the building. Now, what is valuation when it comes to property coverage? This is what we use to properly insure items included in property coverage. While property taxes are based upon the market value of the property in a specific area, insurance is based on replacement cost or actual cash value as this is the promise the insurance company makes to help you rebuild or reconstruct the property. As simple as it sounds, replacement cost is really what is says. It is the estimate of all costs that would reasonably be incurred to repair or replace the property that has been destroyed or damaged. In contrast, actual cash value is the replacement cost of the property less accumulated depreciation. In other words, it is the depreciated values of the property based upon the diminished useful life or the value when the insured does not repair or replace the damage. Since market values fluctuate time after time, insurance companies often rely upon the replacement cost to make their calculations. Using the actual cash value approach can distort the worth of the property as the item immediately loses value once purchased due to depreciation. Specifically, this means you are unable to receive the same amount it would cost to purchase the identical or nearly equal item employing the actual cash value approach. To put it simply, you will receive a smaller pay out using the actual cash value approach compared to replacement cost as replacement cost does not consider depreciation. In all reality, insurance relies on the principal of indemnity which means you will be returned to the point before the loss happened with neither a gain nor loss. Therefore, replacement cost is the best option to choose. References “Property Insurance Valuation Methods.” Insurance Associates Agency Inc. Insurance Associates Agency Inc., 10 Mar. 2016. Web. “Valuation Loss Condition in the Building and Personal Property Coverage Form.” Reference Connect. IRMI, 2011. Web.

The commercial property insurance market has faced rising premiums since 2017. While such rate jumps showed some signs of slowing in 2022 by largely remaining within single digits, this moderation didn’t last in 2023. According to industry data, commercial property insurance premiums surged by an average of 20.4% in the first quarter of 2023 alone. In the latter half of the year, the segment recorded the highest average premium jumps across all lines of commercial coverage at 18.3%. These conditions are primarily the result of another intense season of natural disasters, inflation issues and an increasingly volatile property valuation landscape. Losses stemming from these trends have forced commercial property insurers to continue increasing the majority of policyholders’ premiums and introducing more restrictive coverage terms. Looking ahead, insureds who conduct high-risk operations, have poor property management practices or are located in natural disaster-prone areas will likely remain susceptible to ongoing rate hikes and coverage limitations. Developments and Trends to Watch Natural Disasters Extreme weather events often leave behind severe property damage. As such, the rising frequency and severity of these catastrophes have continued to pose concerns in the commercial property insurance market. Research platform Bloomberg Intelligence reported that 2023 marks the fourth consecutive year in which global insured losses resulting from natural disasters are projected to exceed $100 billion. In addition, convective storms (e.g., thunderstorms, tornadoes and hailstorms) surged this past year, contributing to 68% of all weather-related losses in the first half of 2023, according to industry data. Many climate experts predict that natural disaster trends will continue to exacerbate commercial property losses in the future. Inflation Issues Like other lines of coverage, the commercial property insurance segment has been impacted by inflation issues in recent years, prompting higher premiums and claim expenses when losses occur. These issues have been brought on by a combination of fluctuating material demand, supply chain complications, surging prices for building resources and rising labor costs across the construction sector. Although increased material costs and wage growth trends have certainly softened since their peak in 2021, they continue to exceed pre-COVID-19-pandemic levels, affecting property repair and replacement expenses and related claims. Insurance-to-Value (ITV) Considerations In light of current inflation issues, ensuring accurate property valuations has proven to be a difficult feat. After all, these valuations are tied to the latest building material prices, which have become more volatile over the years. In response, insurance experts are encouraging businesses to be more diligent in performing correct ITV calculations and maintaining ample commercial property coverage; some insurers have even introduced specific ITV standards for their policyholders. An accurate ITV calculation represents as close to an equal ratio as possible between the amount of insurance a business obtains and the estimated value of its commercial building or structure. Reinsurance Capacity Challenges As natural disasters become more severe and inflation sits at elevated levels, commercial property reinsurers are facing a rise in claims and diminished profitability. Consequently, some reinsurers have lowered capacity for catastrophe (CAT) exposures and hiked up primary insurers’ premiums. Certain reinsurers have also introduced sublimits and revised their policy wording to establish more distinct coverage restrictions. Although demand for reinsurance remains high, capacity will likely become further constrained in 2024, therefore impacting overall commercial property insurance limitations and costs. Tips for Insurance Buyers Keep your commercial property in good condition at all times and immediately address building issues that could lead to losses and subsequent claims. Provide all relevant loss control documentation to your insurer. Analyze your organization’s CAT exposures. If your commercial property is located in an area more prone to certain types of natural disasters, implement adequate mitigation and response measures. Ensure accurate ITV valuations. From there, determine whether you need to adjust your organization’s policy limits to avoid underinsuring your commercial property and facing coinsurance penalties.

The freight broker game is becoming more and more competitive. New freight brokers are stepping into the arena to compete for business, while several other divisions of the shipping industry are joining the competition. Emerging technologies drove competition and are changing the way of brokering freight by streamlining the processes. It is more important than ever to vet out each broker and motor carrier before doing business with one another. There are many variables to consider when entering a contract or agreement. Best Practices for Motor Carriers When Engaging with Freight Brokers There are many different practices a motor carrier should consider when working with a broker. Always check and ensure the broker is properly licensed. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Federal law requires a federal property broker license issued by the FMCSA for anyone arranging transportation for compensation. A motor carrier brokering loads without broker authority will signal the first red flag. Confirm proper authority and licenses are in place. As a motor carrier working with a broker, it is beneficial to research the broker’s history to determine how long the brokerage has been in business. The first year in business in the Transportation industry will often prove to be the most difficult. In the first couple of years, the goal for the broker is to survive. Aligning yourself with a broker who has an established track record and history of successful execution will carry with it less risk than the new comers in the broker space. Lastly, as a motor carrier, it is important to ensure payment can be made by the broker. Verifying freight brokers are financially stable and making timely payments is a good start. A credit check can give the motor carrier the tools to confirm if the broker is profitable or if there are liens and/or legal judgments against them. Doing business with a brokerage dealing with financial and/or legal issues will only cause more hardship in the event there are any claims. Always review the motor carrier and broker contract agreement. Contracts are very specific and it is important to review the document in its entirety before agreeing to any terms. The wording in those agreements can be the difference between having coverage for a claim or taking on the responsibilities of covering a loss out of pocket. A few critical terms to look for in a broker-motor carrier agreement are broker requirements, broker obligations, assignment/modification of the agreement, and non-exclusive agreement. Best Practices for Freight Brokers Screening Motor Carriers Freight brokers working with a motor carrier are responsible for screening each carrier before entrusting them a load. Consider reviewing each motor carrier's COI (Certificate of Insurance) and safety rating before brokering any freight. A Certificate of Insurance review is a consideration that will directly affect the coverage of the load. Validating the certification for adequate coverage is the first step. Also, confirm they have the correct limits and coverage terms in place. Verify the insurance provider is financially solvent, the rating ‘A-‘, or better is recommended. Some claims take time to resolve, and it is important to review the financial strength of the insurance provider to determine if they will be in business in the next 5 years. The DOT and FMCSA utilize SAFER (Safety and Fitness Electronic Records System) to provide a concise electronic record of a company’s identification, size, commodity information, and safety record, including the safety rating. SAFER is a powerful tool for verifying company information and most importantly identifying the motor carrier’s safety rating. The ideal safety rating is “Satisfactory” and often times a “Conditional” rating will show some safety issues. Finally, when entering a contract with a motor carrier, always make sure the Broker Carrier Agreement is signed and completed before brokering any freight. The most important document to collect as a broker is the Bill of Lading. A BOL or Bill of Lading is a document issued by the motor carrier as a receipt of freight for shipment. BOL has many important functions: Evidence of Contract of Carriage, Receipt of Goods, and Documents of Title to the goods. Several considerations should be made as a broker or motor carrier when entering a contract. All contracts and terms must be read and understood before signing an agreement. Spend the time to research the brokerage or motor carrier to understand the history and operations before aligning your businesses.

For independent contractors, the world of Auto Liability can be a confusing place with lots of misnomers and interchangeable terms. While an independent contractor is operating under the direction of the motor carrier, their Auto Liability exposure is covered under the motor carrier’s primary Auto Liability policy. For times when the tractor is being operated without direction from any motor carrier, the independent contractor should have some form of liability coverage. Very often, the term bobtailing is used in general terms to refer to an independent contractor when they are not hauling under contract for a motor carrier. Specifically, to bobtail means when you operate a tractor without a trailer attached. There is an insurance coverage form that can be purchased for bobtail exposure. This policy would respond regardless of the nature of the operation of the independent contractor as long as they were not pulling a trailer. Deadheading, however, is when a tractor is pulling an empty trailer. An unladen liability policy would cover losses when the tractor is not transporting cargo. The most common form of liability coverage for the independent contractor is Non-Trucking Auto Liability. The main purpose of the Non-Trucking Auto Liability policy is to respond when the independent contractor is not operating under the discretion of the motor carrier. Due to the broad nature of policy language defining “business operations” and the fact that oftentimes the independent contractor is acting under the terms of their lease or the business operations of the motor carrier; Non-Trucking Auto Liability policies are infamous for not paying out. In terms of liability coverage for the owner-operator, the unladen liability and bobtail policies provide broader coverage because the need to determine what the unit was being used for is not required to trigger coverage. For this reason, these policies are harder to get and more expensive than the commonplace Non-Trucking Auto Liability policy. The best case scenario when placing Non-Trucking Auto Liability coverage is to place the coverage with the same insurance company as the motor carrier. This method will eliminate any coverage gaps that can occur between carriers' policy language. If that is not an option, it is best to consult your trucking insurance professional for their advice on the next best option. Resources “Bobtail Trucking Coverage”  National Underwriter Company FC&S Bulletin 09/04/2010 “Bobtail or Deadheading Liability Coverage”  Rough Notes 09/01/14 Transport Topics:  Opinion:  Liability Coverage: Bobtail policies 09/02/2013

Navigating FMCSA Updates: A Closer Look at the MCSA-1 Implementation The New Year will bring new changes to the biannual updates required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Effective January 14, 2017, all required updates with the FMCSA must be filed electronically via the MCSA-1. This electronic form takes the place of the MCS-150 and is the result of the implementation of the Unified Registration System (URS). This system consolidates four different registration systems–including the U.S. Department of Transportation Identification Number System and the 49 U.S.C Chapter 139 Commercial Registration System. The update in paperwork will streamline the registration of new carriers and will prove to be cost-effective for both the motor carrier as well as the FMCSA. Key Requirements and Submission Process of the MCSA-1 Any motor carrier (exempt, non-exempt, or private), broker, freight forwarder, intermodal equipment provider, cargo tank facility or hazardous materials safety permit applicant must complete the MCSA-1 to obtain a USDOT number. USDOT numbers may remain inactive pending a complete submission and approval of all filing requirements. The MCSA-1 must also be completed and updated to restore a revoked or inactive registration. The MCSA-1 must be completed online and, just as with the MCS-150, current motor carriers must update their MCSA-1 at a minimum of once every twenty-four months. Motor carriers are required to update their MCSA-1 within thirty days of an address change, change to legal name, or form of business operations. The MCSA-1 is an in-depth questionnaire designed to provide the FMCSA a detailed snapshot of the operations of each individual motor carrier. Therefore, all motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders must complete the MCSA-1 as completely and as precisely as possible. Legal Name, principal address, and mailing address are key items to be completed and updated correctly. This information is used when verifying a motor carrier’s operating authority and insurance, so accuracy in these fields is crucial. The MCSA-1 is a comprehensive application, so information regarding the company’s operations is also required. Motor carriers should be prepared for questions such as: Who owns the company? What commodities will be hauled? Is this an interstate or intrastate operation? What is your company’s EIN? The answer to these questions determines what additional items are necessary to be granted a USDOT number. Therefore, the application must be completed as accurately as possible to avoid any complications or delays in obtaining a USDOT number. Notable Changes The MCSA-1 does bring a few notable changes, the most pertinent being the discontinuance of the motor carrier number (MC#). Going forward, the USDOT number will be the sole number used to identify motor carriers, freight forwarders and brokers. The prior registration system used four different identification numbers, making updating and consolidating the information tedious. The other major difference to keep in mind is the form can only be completed and submitted online. Previously, motor carriers could submit the MCS-150 by mail if they preferred. This process often causes delays in processing, which then leads to delays in reinstatement, updates, etc. Completing the MCSA-1 online will help deter such delays and prove more efficient for the motor carrier. Taken as a whole, current motor carriers will not see a drastic difference in requirements under the MCSA-1 when compared to the MCS-150. The information required for registration is similar and the mandatory window for updates did not change. As mentioned above, the most evident change is that there will no longer be motor carrier numbers issued to new motor carriers, brokers, or freight forwarders. The sole use of the USDOT number for identification will streamline registration and will allow for quick and accurate updates with the FMCSA. Overall, the update to the MCSA-1 will be both time-efficient and cost-effective for all parties involved. References https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/08/23/2013-20446/unified-registration-system

The transportation and logistics industry is ever-changing, and lately, warehousing services seem to be more prevalent. As a warehouse operator, it is important to fully understand the legalities of the warehousing business and ensure the necessary coverage is in force. Warehouse operators are subject to the United States Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Under UCC, a warehouse operator is liable for the goods of others being stored for a fee. If the warehouse were to experience a loss in which customers’ goods were damaged, the warehouse operator could be liable for the failure to exercise reasonable care over those goods. Warehouse operations are exposed to many risks including theft, flood, fire, and damage to others’ goods being stored in their facility. Warehouse Legal Liability coverage is intended to respond when the warehouse operator’s negligence, or failure to exercise due care in handling or storing customers’ goods, results in loss or damage to the goods being stored. Warehouse Legal Liability is carried by the warehouse operator and coverage is triggered by a warehouse receipt. A warehouse receipt is a document, mandated by law, which includes the transactions of the parties involved and is essential in warehouse operations. Under Section 7 of the UCC, in order to be valid, a warehouse receipt must contain several pieces of key information, including but not limited to the location of the warehouse, the issue date of the receipt, a description of the goods being stored, and the rate of storage. Warehouse Legal Liability coverage does not apply if a warehouse receipt has not been issued, as there would be no way to determine the property that was to be covered and its value. It is imperative to understand the contracts and agreements that are in place when providing warehousing services. Enlisting the expertise of an attorney to review the warehouse receipt, bill of lading and any other client contracts will help determine if any contracts expand the warehouse operator’s liability beyond the warehouse receipt. It is also important to note that a warehouse operator cannot waive the obligation of legal liability, as it is mandated by the UCC. When pursuing a quote for Warehouse Legal Liability, underwriters will likely ask many detailed questions and may perform a physical inspection in order to fully understand the operation and related exposures. The construction type of the building, nature of occupancy, and forms of protection such as sprinklers, alarms, and guards are all important information for underwriters. They will also likely require a copy of the warehouse receipt issued by the operation. One should consider the scope of coverage when purchasing a Warehouse Legal Liability policy. Defense costs are often a large expense included in a warehouse claim. However, not all Warehouse Legal Liability insurance policies include defense costs. Debris removal is another cost that may be incurred by a warehouse operator. These are the costs to have damaged property contained, removed, and disposed of after a loss. Also, some losses may not be covered by a Warehouse Legal Liability policy. These typically include wear and tear, deterioration, corrosion, rust, dampness, defects in the property, unexplained loss, or employee dishonesty, just to name a few. Warehouse Legal Liability can be an excellent coverage to protect a warehouse operator. However, warehouse operations are often complex and should involve legal counsel and the expertise of an insurance professional to ensure these operations are properly covered. Resources https://www.roanoketrade.com/importance_warehouse_legal_liability/ https://www.thehartford.com/marine-insurance/warehouse-logistics https://www.silverplume.com/SPOnline/SPSage.aspx?cmd=search&tpc=Ins%2FAll%20Content&etfs=DgPlad3FsgrpS2TbDulojA&ac=on&isCompany=False&qry=warehouse%20legal https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc