Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
Truckers and the companies that insure them have grown accustomed to increasingly adverse jury awards stemming from truck-related accidents. They are also well aware of the bulls-eye painted on their backs by the plaintiffs' bar. But even the most jaundiced legal eye couldn't have foreseen the bombshell dropped by a Harris County, Texas jury on May 17.
Jurors hit Werner Enterprises, Inc., a large truckload carrier and logistics provider, with an $89 million judgment for a fatal accident on Dec. 30, 2014, near Odessa, Texas, more than 500 miles from Houston, the core of Harris County. According to court records, a pick-up truck carrying a family and travelling on eastbound Interstate 20 lost control and spun across a grassy median onto the westbound side, where it collided with the oncoming Werner rig. A 7-year-old boy died and his 12-year-old sister suffered catastrophic brain injuries. A third child and the mother—who was not driving—were also hurt. The tractor-trailer driver, who was a student driver at the time, espaced injury. An instructor in the cab and the driver of the pick-up also avoided injuries.
According to Werner, the tractor-trailer had no chance to avoid the pick-up once it careened on to westbound I-20. Its driver was operating below the posted speed limit, did not lose control of the rig, and brought it to a complete stop after impact, Werner said. The driver did not receive a citation, nor did the investigating officers find the driver culpable, werner said.
Attorneys for the family saw it differently. They maintained the driver and instructor knew the weather conditions along that stretch of I-20 were bad and getting worse, and that they should have either slowed the rig to a crawl or pulled off the road. Instead, the driver's speed was clocked at 50.5 mph at the time of impact, well above what it should have been under such adverse conditions.
Werner executives, who were stunned by the verdict and the amount of the judgment, said in a government filing that its maximum out-of-pocket liability would be $10 million if the verdict and award are upheld. Its insurance providers would pick up the balance. The Omaha-based company said it would appeal the verdict, adding an ominous warning that "if an accident like this is the fault of the driver who was hit by the out of control vehicle, think about what that means for every motorist on the roads."
Insurance companies have also been thinking, and several have thought better of staying in a business where "nuclear" verdicts in the many millions of dollars have wreaked havoc with their claims-loss ratios. Insurers, on average, paid $111 in claims during 2017 for each $100 in premiums, an unsustainable loss ratio of 111, according to Fitch Ratings, a ratings agency. "Commercial auto insurance remains a chronic problem for underwriters despite numerous rounds of rate increases and underwriting actions," said James Auden, managing director at Fitch, in a May report. "Loss severity trends, rising litigation costs, shortages of experienced drivers, and continued reserve weakness may limit the potential for underwriting improvement in the near term." Ironically, the report was published the same day as the Werner verdict.
In 2015, Zurich and AIG unit Lexington, both key players in different segments of truck insurance, effectively exited those markets. Last November, Westfield Insurance, another big motor carrier underwriter, departed. Many who remain have changed their underwriting strategies. More insurers are raising their minimum driver insurability ages to 25 in response to the claims, according to Matthew Little, senior vice president at McGriff, Seibels and Williams, an insurance and risk management concern in Atlanta. Owner-operators, especially those new to the industry, are having challenges finding coverages they can afford.
Under federal law, every licensed motor carrier must carry at least $750,000 of coverage. The coverage requirement can be as high as $5 million for vehicles with more than a 10,001-pound gross vehicle weight (the combination of tractor, trailer and cargo) and hauling certain types of commodities. Many large fleets carry so-called excess insurance that can pay off as much as $30 million for an incident. Those coverages are often bought in $5 million increments, or "layers" in industry parlance.
The exit of Zurich, which was strong in the so-called "primary limit" market of the first $5 million of coverage, did not cause a major disruption because other carriers stepped in to write policies, said Todd Reiser, vice president of Lockton Companies Inc., a Kansas City, Mo.-based broker who helps underwrite coverage for large fleets. By contrast, Lexington's departure created a huge void in the excess market because it wrote the bulk of those policies, according to Reiser. Lexington's absence, combined with the excess market's huge exposure to "nuclear verdicts,"has substantially forced up premiums at that end, he said. "That has all calmed down to some degree, but the bad industry experience continues," Reiser said in an e-mail.
In general, coverage today is abundant and available, albeit with higher premiums and deductibles. Truckers try to mitigate the premiums increases by buying "corridor" policies where they absorb a higher deductible in the event of a pay-out.
In addition, underwriters have become savvy at understanding the role information technology plays in improving a carrier's safety and risk profiles, Reiser said. For example, a carrier sits in good stead with an underwriter if it can show that 90 percent of its fleet is equipped with technology that helps reduce accident risk by 78 percent, he said.
Collision-avoidance technology offers the biggest I.T. bang for the buck because it helps reduce the risk of rear-end incidents which compose most of the larger claims, Reiser said. Cameras are a valuable feature, but the cost of equipment, installation, and operation may be off-putting to some fleets, he said.
For fleets, understanding and, if necessary, improving their grades under the federal government's "CSA" carrier-benchmarking program is critical, experts say. Like the CSA process or not—and many fleets do not—underwriters use them as a key criterion to determine if they will offer coverage and on what terms.
Premiums are one of the ingredients baked into freight rates, which given today's sellers' market for freight, has made it easier for fleets to pass on. However, being a cyclical business, trucking demand will at some future point turn down. At that time, said Richard Malchow, an editor for consultancy and media firm J.J. Keller & Associates, Inc., "carriers will very much be affected by the high insurance premiums and deductibles." The leading carriers are reinvesting their increased revenues into their safety programs, which includes training resources, safety evaluations, and technology encompassing in-cab and back-office features to mitigate risk and control current and future insurance expense, Malchow said in an e-mail.
For some insurance companies, what was once a popular and profitable line of business is becoming an unsustainable one. But they can exit the line if they choose. Motor carriers that must have coverage aren't so lucky. For them, the pain of higher premiums and deductibles is a clear and present scenario.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.