Common use of Method of Dispute Resolution Clause in Contracts

Method of Dispute Resolution. Motor Carrier shall advise Provider in writing of any disputed items on Provider's invoices within 30 days of the receipt of such invoice(s). Provider will undertake to reconcile such disputed items within sixty (60) days of receipt of Motor Carrier's notice and will either provide verification for the charges as invoiced or will issue a credit to Motor Carrier's account for any amount not properly invoiced. Such disputes do not constitute valid grounds for withholding or delaying payments of undisputed charges as required by the Terms of this Agreement. In the event that charges which have been verified by the Provider are again rejected and disputed by Motor Carrier for whatever reasons, Provider reserves its rights and remedies under the law to compel payment of such charges. In the event any disputed items involve Eagle Credits (I.E. above) it will not be the Provider's obligation to supply reports detailing all such Eagle Credits as earned to the Motor Carrier by invoice. UIIA MC, ) ) Case Number: 20190509-1-IXXX-PD UIIA EP, ) Date of Decision: 10/30/2019 Respondent ) 1 UST000052 6/25/2018 140 5/15/18 5/21/18 5 6/25/2018 7/3/18 No response within the TF 5/9/19 2 UST000057 6/25/2018 140 5/15/18 5/21/18 5 6/25/2018 7/3/18 No response within the TF 3 UST000060 6/25/2018 140 5/15/18 5/21/18 5 6/25/2018 7/3/18 No response within the TF 4 UST000130 6/25/2018 140 5/15/18 5/21/18 5 6/25/2018 7/3/18 No response within the TF 5 UST000241 6/25/2018 190 5/9/18 5/15/18 5 6/25/2018 7/3/18 No response within the TF 6 UST000689 6/25/2018 140 5/4/18 5/9/18 4 6/25/2018 7/3/18 No response within the TF 7 UST001361 6/26/2018 140 5/17/18 5/23/18 5 6/26/2018 7/3/18 No response within the TF 8 UST001864 6/26/2018 140 6/15/18 6/21/18 5 6/26/2018 7/3/18 No response within the TF 9 UST002199 6/26/2018 190 6/5/18 6/11/18 5 6/26/2018 7/3/18 No response within the TF 10 UST011536 7/3/2018 190 6/21/18 6/26/18 4 7/3/2018 7/18/18 No response within the TF 48/61 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 6/25/2018 140 5/3/18 5/8/18 4 6/25/2018 7/3/18 No response within the TF 50 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 7/16/2018 140 7/3/18 7/9/18 5 7/16/2018 8/18/18 No response within the TF 57 UST024084 7/30/2018 140 7/17/18 7/23/18 5 7/30/2018 8/16/18 No response within the TF 12 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 8/27/2018 280 8/14/18 8/20/18 5 8/27/2018 8/28/18 No response within the TF 13 UST043059 9/11/2018 190 8/28/18 9/4/18 5 9/11/2018 9/25/18 No response within the TF 14 UST043215 9/11/2018 140 8/31/18 9/5/18 4 9/11/2018 9/25/18 No response within the TF 15 UST043217 9/11/2018 140 8/30/18 9/5/18 5 9/11/2018 9/25/18 No response within the TF 21 UST046381 9/18/2018 190 9/4/18 9/10/18 5 9/18/2018 9/25/18 No response within the TF 22 UST047190 9/18/2018 140 9/6/18 9/11/18 4 9/18/2018 9/25/18 No response within the TF 25 UST065624 10/25/2018 140 10/10/18 10/16/18 5 10/25/2018 10/29/18 No response within the TF 52 UST072308 11/9/2018 140 10/17/18 10/23/18 5 11/9/2018 11/14/18 No response within the TF 47(credit) UST000116 6/25/18 420 Full amt. was cancelled by EP but MC paid 140.00 No response within the TF 49(credit) UST000819 6/25/18 700 Full amt. was cancelled by EP but MC paid 420.00 No response within the TF The Motor Carrier’s basis of dispute is Section E.6 of the UIIA and Section 1. Free Time, A&B of the Equipment Provider’s addendum to the UIIA. The Motor Carrier disputed the invoices with the Equipment Provider as they believe the Equipment Provider miscalculated destination detention free time. The Motor Carrier stated that their contract as a trucker under the UIIA is with the Equipment Provider and that the Service Contract is between the Equipment Provider and the Shipper, not the trucker. The Equipment Provider responded to the claim stating under their addendum to the UIIA ("EP’s Addendum"), EP established free time for detention in the United States as the day of initial interchange-plus four working days for regular equipment and the day of initial interchange-plus three working days for operating reefer/tank and other specialized containers not covered elsewhere. Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays are excluded from the free time calculation. The Equipment Provider also stated that EP and its customers may deviate from the free time for detention established in the EP’s Addendum by including an exception in the service contracts. When an exception to detention free time is agreed to and included in a service contract, that exception controls over the detention free time included in the EP’s Addendum. Therefore, the Equipment Provider feels that the Motor Carriers are bound by any exception to detention free time included in a service contract as Motor Carriers are agents for their customers. Accordingly, the Motor Carrier is bound by any exceptions to detention free time contained in the service contracts that apply to the shipments they are moving. In the event there are questions or confusion about the applicable detention free time for a particular shipment, it is the responsibility of the customers and the Motor Carriers to communicate with each other regarding what detention free time is available. Therefore, the Equipment Provider feels that the invoice is valid and should stand. After careful review of all documents and the evidence submitted by the parties, the panel unanimously finds in favor of the Equipment Provider. Based upon the following facts, the Ocean Carrier panel member stated that the Motor Carrier failed to follow the dispute process in place at the time: • The dates of interchange related to the invoices under dispute range from 5/4/2018 – 10/23/18. There were two versions of the EP addendum in effect covering this timeframe. The dispute e-mail address contained in the EP’s addendum during this timeframe was as follows: • EP’s Addendum – Version effective March 1, 2018 – dispute e-mail was: ▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇ • EP’s Addendum – Version effective October 7, 2018 – dispute e-mail was: ▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇ • The copy of the EP’s addendum that the Motor Carrier included as supporting documentation in the binding arbitration case was not effective until September 25, 2019, which is after the dates of interchange and shows ▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇. The Motor Carrier did not use the address shown in the EP’s addendum in effect at the time of the interchange period. Instead the Motor Carrier used the email address ▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇@▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇ to dispute the charges and this was the e-mail address that was shown on the EP’s invoices for inquiries. The Motor Carrier panel member agreed stating that the Motor Carrier was not in compliance with the Equipment Provider’s dispute process. Because the proper initial dispute process was not followed by the Motor Carrier as set forth in the Equipment’s addendum, the panel agreed that the specific calculation of free time used related to the disputed charges did not come into play when rendering this decision.