[solo379]

OK! Here is the answer i've got from OOIDA.

The federal regulations require this language to be included within written lease agreements as you can see in Section 376.12.

§376.12 Written lease requirements. Except as provided in the exemptions set forth in subpart C of this part, the written lease required under §376.11(a) shall contain the following provisions. The required lease provisions shall be adhered to and performed by the authorized carrier.

Written Lease Requirements

As many of you know, the authorized motor carrier has a lot of responsibility as is spelled out in the regulations noted above...this includes maintaining insurance for the protection of the public, Federal, State and local laws, payment to the leased owner operator, etc.

For example, having complete responsibility for the leased equipment means that the authorized carrier can tell the leased owner operator that they can't use the equipment to haul a load for anyone without the approval of the carrier. The leased owner operator can only haul for someone (shipper/broker) approved by the authorized carrier.

The wording in this section is more about the responsibility that the authorized carrier has to the public and to the leased owner-op than it does about the right of the owner-op to refuse to accept a load.

[Malaki86]

This topic needs to be "Stickied" - great info here

[Musicman]

Originally Posted by solo379

OK! Here is the answer i've got from OOIDA.

I'm glad to see that you were able to get an answer from OOIDA. I called and talked to a male (I cannot recall his name) who couldn't explain why the wording would read the way it does. The whole point of having things in writing is so a point can be made with little room for debate. Nonetheless he seemed to agree with what you were told as well. It is obvious, to me anyway, that the passage as written clearly means the carrier has complete control of the equipment. If the author of that passage meant what you have indicated, he or she could have easily stated what you and OOIDA discussed. I agree that a leased on operator doesn't have to do what the carrier says or go where the carrier wants him or her to go... terminating the lease is always an option.

I will make this observation about my experience with OOIDA: They do a lot of good in our industry, but they do have their faults. They seem to be primarily set up to favor the leased on operator. I looked at the sample lease they provide to anyone who asks and realized that only a fool (as a carrier) would ever enter into that agreement without serious modifications. It would be interesting to have a contract attorney review the lease or even see it tested in court to see what the outcome is.

Since I’m not willing to pay for independent legal counsel on something that isn’t an issue with me (I’m leased to my own LLC and doubt I’ll ever sue myself) and only know criminal attorneys whom I could get free advice from, I’ll concede for now that at a minimum OOIDA’s advice may be general wisdom in our industry.

[gcal]

After all my experiences in the trucking business I have come to one simple yet comprehensive conclusion......THERE SHOULD BE A MANDATORY COURSE AT A COMMUNITY COLLEGE TO BE A :OWNER/OPERATOR:!!!

It should consist of basic Math, reading, writing, and computer skills. Then you should be forced to learn things like what is posted in this thread and MORE. I swear if there was such a course the whole trucking industry would be different. People wouldn't take advantage as easily of drivers and the turn over rate would be a lot lower. Thus helping the industry altogether. But instead we have trucking schools that teach you how to shift and brake...and send you out on the road....
God help the trucking industry and the drivers who suffer cause of it.