Freight 360 · 2026-06-02 · 14 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
60 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
This episode tackles three practical questions freight brokers and carriers face regularly. The first explores why brokers might obscure commodity information when booking loads - theft and fraud prevention are legitimate concerns, especially with high-value targets like frozen seafood (per Keith Lewis from CargoNet), but by booking time, full disclosure is essential and verifiable via insurance. The second addresses why brokers set minimum authority requirements: while theft from shell MCs was a historical concern, the real value today is vetting experienced drivers who've recently started their own operations - often overlooked candidates. The hosts identify these as prime opportunities: seasoned drivers with 10+ years experience and 3-6 months of new authority often outperform blanket rejections. The third question examines cargo insurance commodity exclusions, which aren't publicly disclosed and appear intentionally obscured. The episode then veers into broader insurance frustration: accounts receivable policies with 150-day claim payouts plus dispute delays destroy cash flow for small-to-mid-size brokers, effectively defeating the purpose of coverage when businesses need liquidity now, not after bankruptcy.
Early in discussions, brokers may limit details to prevent theft or fraud targeting. However, by the time of booking and rate confirmation, commodity should be fully disclosed so carriers can verify insurance coverage; brokers who hide high-value goods under false descriptions are bad actors taking unnecessary risk.
No legitimate reason exists for blanket rejection of new authorities. The real value is secondary vetting - experienced drivers with 10+ years of experience who've just started their own company (3-6 months authority) are often the best partners, yet are systematically overlooked.
No, commodity exclusions are not publicly available and often obscured on certificates. You must ask carriers directly during onboarding or require all-risk policies for high-risk commodities like frozen seafood, produce, and electronics.
Produce (lettuce, berries), frozen seafood, high-value electronics, firearms, and ammunition are frequently excluded or require special coverage due to theft risk and claim history.
For small-to-mid-size brokers, 150-day payouts plus dispute delays mean waiting nearly a year before reimbursement, effectively destroying liquidity and potentially bankrupting the business before the claim resolves - making it essential to compare actual claim speed (30-60 days vs. 150 days) as a business survival metric.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode covers practical broker-carrier dynamics with some useful tactical insights (commodity disclosure risks, MC vetting criteria, insurance verification processes), but much of it rehashes conventional wisdom about theft, fraud, and insurance limitations. The discussion of accounts receivable insurance claims timelines adds specificity, but large portions devolve into complaint and commiseration rather than novel insight.
[commodity disclosure] could be a target of theft, fraud, things of that nature
if they're brand new and experienced, we don't know their history or if they've driven it on our company before
The episode recycles standard industry risk frameworks (theft, fraud, credit, experience verification) without introducing contrarian or first-principles thinking. The critique of insurance claim timelines is somewhat fresh but devolves into venting rather than offering alternative structures or original solutions.
theft is the obvious one
Brokers might have a rule that says, you know, you must have, you know, one year authority or six months authority
This is a host-led Q&A with no external guests, but the hosts demonstrate substantial practitioner credibility discussing real broker-carrier friction and insurance mechanics from operational experience. One referenced expert (Keith Lewis from CargoNet) was previously interviewed but not present here. The hosts speak with authority on their domain but lack the value of external perspectives.
Keith Lewis from CargoNet, who we had on the show a couple of years back
I was evaluating accounts receivable insurance yesterday
The episode includes some concrete examples (frozen seafood theft trends, produce/berries/firearms as high-risk commodities, specific carrier vetting timelines) and one detailed insurance anecdote (150 days vs. 60 days payout, $200K/$100K claim thresholds). However, most discussion remains procedural without named companies, real cases, or quantified outcomes of specific strategies.
frozen seafood being a target for theft... that's a new norm now
One average claim payout time frame expected from them is what they say was 150 days. And the other one was, I think, 30 or 60
The hosts ask solid clarifying questions (e.g., 'what considerations or risks are we looking at here?') and follow up on vague topics, but the conversational flow is often reactive rather than probing. There is little challenge or pushback; instead, one host frequently agrees and pivots to a related complaint or anecdote. The insurance discussion becomes a vent session rather than a structured interrogation of tradeoffs.
What do what are your thoughts here, Ben, on what from the broker's perspective?
if it's failed, to trigger a further review
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
Nate Cross & Ben Kowalski answer your freight brokering questions and discuss: Why brokers hide commodity details from new carriers ️ What brokers fear most with new MCs Can brokers verify cargo exclusions before onboarding carriers? Support Our Sponsors: Togo: Click Here OperFi: Click Here QuikSkope - Get a Free Trial: Click Here DAT One - Brokers & Carriers: Click Here to get 10% off your first year! DAT Outgo Factoring for Carriers: Click Here AscendTMS: Click Here and use promo code RA-freight360! to get AscendTMS FREE for 90 days! Recommended Products: Click Here Freight Broker Basics Course: Click Here
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Welcome back for another edition of the final mile. This is our listener QA session here every week. If you guys have a question that you want us to answer, you can email us at info at freight360.net.
You can leave a comment on YouTube. You can hit the contact form on our website. We can't get to all the questions, um, but we try to pick some good ones and get some good variety every single week. Uh, make sure to check out the sponsors to help support this channel.
And let's hop right into it. All right. Our first question, and these first couple came from our Facebook group. Said, why would a broker hide the details of the commodity that they're asking a driver to haul?
So it sounded like it was a carrier asking, and he he went on to say that like twice recently, what he was told he was picking up was different than what he actually picked up. So it's kind of two sides of this. On one side, if you're just talking with somebody on the phone, the explicit details of the load, I can see when a broker might want to limit that early on in the conversation. Um, you know, it you could be a target of theft, fraud, things of that nature.
But dude, with all the commodity exclusions on policies now, I can't see why a broker, when they're actually booking a carrier, would not disclose the details of the commodity. So you could have a bad broker, right? A bad actor who's trying to say, oh, it's, you know, it's this, and the reality is it's a high value, you know, whatever, because they're just trying to book a cheap truck and they're taking a lot of risk on there. And that is not a good way to do business.
But maybe you've got, you know, frozen seafood. And I had an insurance agent tell me like two weeks. No, it was last oh, it wasn't an insurance agent. It was Keith Lewis from CargoNet, who we had on the show a couple of years back.
I talked to him last week, and he's like, he's the guy that was on 60 Minutes with the the chameleon carrier thing. He was telling me, he's like, yeah, he's like frozen seafood being a target for theft. He goes, that's a new norm now. So just you know, expect to be targeted as somebody that deals in that world and do extra careful vetting of your carriers and make sure you've got really good, thorough review on insurance, etc.
But maybe you've got something that's a high pilford or high risk of theft. And until you've vetted a carrier beyond the basics, maybe you would you could say, hey, it's a it's a reefer load, right? Worth X amount of money or whatever. So I could see maybe that, but still, by the time I'm gonna select, book a carrier, and send a rate confirmation, I'm definitely making sure that the insurance covers it, both the value and the commodity.
So any thoughts you have as to why a broker might legitimately not be honest about the commodity that they're trying to flip. Yeah, theft is the obvious one. But the other one is like it even a long time ago before theft was an issue, like it was pretty common to not put the commodity in the comments, mostly as like a negotiation tactic, because the carriers would shop the loads against each other based on what you were they were hauling. But again, like I don't even think that's too common anymore or makes a lot of sense.
But yeah. I think ultimately, if I'm a driver, I I want to know what's you know what's in the back of my truck. So it sounds to me like in this case, and we don't have all the details, the broker might have just been being dishonest. It's the same thing where you get like brokers that say it's one weight, and then the driver ends up loading more and they get upset because you're gonna burn more fuel hauling 40,000 pounds versus 20,000 pounds.
Just the reality of doing business. So all right, next one. Brokers, what are you really worried about when dealing with a new MC? Somebody break it down.
So this is common. Um, you see a lot of times brokers might have a rule that says, you know, you must have, you know, one year authority or six months authority, three months authority, whatever it might be. What do what are your thoughts here, Ben, on what from the broker's perspective? Because this is probably a a carrier asking or a dispatcher asking, or maybe it's a new broker just wondering what why should I be setting this rule or what should I set it at?
What considerations or risks are we looking at here? It used to be safety of like just experience of a driver, which is kind of less relevant because most of them, the drivers didn't just get their CDL. They're usually an experienced driver that starts their own company. So like that one kind of didn't make sense to me.
The second one would be like theft, which used to be because like the new MCs were more likely to be illegitimate, which is not the case really anymore, because the criminals knew that was a red flag, so they just found ways to get older MCs. So like that doesn't really matter anymore. Credit approval, which also to me doesn't make a lot of sense because you're paying them, not waiting for them to pay you. So like to me, that one doesn't also make a lot of sense.
I don't really know of any real legitimate reasons why anyone should care that it's less than a year. I think you could you hit the ones that are that are big. Like the initial, and again, these can be if you set a rule, the carrier must have, let's say, one year of authority, right? And if they don't, maybe they fail, but now maybe you have a uh secondary review.
Right, right. We should talk about this on our podcast episode from last week. But here's the reasons, though, is like, like you said, if they're brand new and experienced, uh, we don't know their history or if they've driven it on our company before. So we're just gonna try to avoid you know a blanket approval of people that are brand new.
We're gonna want to do further vetting on them. The second one is back like the the theft and fraud. So if you go back a few years when you would have, you know, 600 MC numbers all registered to a P.O.
box in the middle of Wyoming, right? And they, you know, they burn through them and then they get a whole bunch, they get 600 more or whatever. That's what it was was these new authorities that were popping up to be used with the intent of committing fraud. And that is where a lot of the the decision from brokers to set a requirement came from.
So yeah, I mean, that's really it. So I mean, I think it is wise to have some requirement and have that requirement, if it's failed, to trigger a further review. Okay. So if I see that a a carrier's been in business for two months, or no, I'll let's even say two weeks, right?
I'm gonna want to know, like, hey, did you just start your own company after working somebody somewhere else? And they'll probably give you their whole speech, like, yeah, I was a you know, I was leased on, or I, you know, I was a company driver for you know the last 12 years. You know, I've driven a million miles crash free, decided I wanted to go work for myself now. And that's why I got my own authority.
And that's a good example. Maybe those are the best ones. Like the best ones, yeah. Dude, it's like the gold mined.
Like when I'm talking with especially brokers that are new in their first year, I'm like, you want to find the experienced drivers who just started their trucking company that have like three to six months under their belt, but have been driving, just like you said, for a dozen years, 10 years, a bunch of miles under their belt, and they want to make it on their own. Like, those are the greatest scenarios for the broker because, like, you get a very experienced driver, and the whole industry just excludes them for seemingly reasons that aren't even relevant anymore.
And I'm like, those are like the best scenarios because you guys can actually help each other in a way that makes sense. Yep. Um, good question. Next one here Is there a way to see a motor carrier's commodity exclusions list for their cargo insurance policy without explicitly asking for it every time you onboard a carrier?
Is this public information anywhere? Not that I'm aware of. I'm pretty sure the answer is no, and that's why we have seen some of the carrier vetting platforms like take steps towards this level of insurance verification. But it's really difficult because when you get a carrier's insurance certificate, it usually like you're gonna see the policy dates and you're gonna see the policy limits.
It doesn't always explicitly state what it covers or excludes. Sometimes it does very outwardly list exclusions, like, hey, this does not cover eggs or this does not cover, you know, fish or whatever, right? But I'll tell you, like, whenever we deal, and this kind of this is where it's tough. You it comes with experience, but there are over time you'll realize what commodities tend to be excluded.
So that's why, back to our first question, it's always important to when you're booking a carry to make sure that, hey, this is what the commodity is. I just want to make sure that your insurance covers it. And if it's one of these common ones that has a high risk of claims or theft, so think like produce, for example, like lettuce and berries. If you look at, uh we talked about frozen seafood already.
If you're looking at high value electronics or firearms, ammunition, I'm gonna want to have it either clearly stated on the cert that it covers it, or I'm gonna want in writing from the insurance agent that it covers. So, and those are big. And when in doubt, this is when you can look for an all-risk policy, right? You might you might pay a little extra money, but you can give your customer peace of mind that we've we're able to secure you primary cargo coverage with you as the you know, the beneficial payee of the policy if there is damage or theft to this specific shipment.
So I will say too, when you get into like those, you know, those tough commodities that are tough to find coverage for, whether it's the value or the specific type of good, that's a niche, right? If you can get, if you can figure out a way like to service those customers and never have an issue finding them capacity because you have a mix of good carrier selection, uh processes and software, and available insurance products, you basically can do anything for them when any other broker is is limited in in what they can find for capacity on them.
So yeah. I wish there was a like a way to see like what's excluded and what's not, but I haven't seen anything like that. Yeah, and to be honest, like dude, just insurance in general to me is like I can't stand dealing with it because like what they actually pay versus what is even listed as excluded, I think is intentionally obscured, hidden in a way that you can't see it. Like that, none of that's by accident, right?
In fact, I looked at this. Our goal is to charge you as much as they can and pay out of what they pay nothing. What was this? It's like delay, deny, litigate for like everything, whether it's health insurance, whatever it is, is just to even if they do pay, drag it out forever.
So I was evaluating accounts receivable insurance yesterday, and I won't say the company's names, but two of the largest, there's like three very large companies that make up most of the market. Two of them compared to each other, okay? One average claim payout time frame expected from them is what they say was 150 days. And the other one was, I think, 30 or 60.
I think it was 60. You have the 60, because I used your guy and he told me what you guys have. And I'm like, 150 days. I was like, how does that actually help?
Yeah, and that's on top of how long you've actually waited before you file a credit. Right. I'm like, so if you waited 30 days and then found out your customer's not going to pay you, or even 45 days, I'm like, that is the better part of a year almost. And I'm like, at that point, I'm like, if it's a $200,000 claim, like your credit rating as a broker will just be destroyed.
Like, how many brokers have an extra $150,000 in cash sitting there to pay all of these other loads that you ran for that same customer? If there's even a $100,000 claim, let alone a $200,000 accounts receivable claim. I'm like, $150 days like doesn't solve the problem. The company very well may be out of business or have no credit to do any business anymore.
The only time I would see the $150 being the optimal choice is if it's a large brokerage that can stomach that cash flow and in return they're getting a cheaper premium on it. And that's a business decision, right? But if you're a small to medium-sized broker, like cash flow is literally maker, it maker makes or breaks your business. So well, here was the other crazy one.
Not only that, and they were like, if the customer disputes it, it goes to another process that extends that. And I'm like, what is how do you define dispute? And they're like, oh, if they just say they don't owe it. I'm like, so they can just say we don't owe this money and then like you guys just drag your feet longer.
I was like, what if I have the document that states they're not correct and they can't justify the fact that they don't want to pay it? Is that still a dispute? Like, well, that's kind of a gray area. I'm like, how is that a gray area?
I'm paying you to insure me against people that don't pay me. And if they just tell you they feel like they don't owe me money, but I give you the documents that show they do, you drag it out for 30 to 45 more days on top of the 150? I'm like, how does that help? Like, that's not even insurance at this point.
Like, yeah, just gonna pay out a policy to a business that doesn't exist anymore because it was bankrupt waiting for the insurance to pay out. It's like, well, you know, these guys are these folks are pretty good, so I wouldn't worry about that. I'm like, why would I not worry about that? When is an insurance company like tripped over themselves to pay a bill sooner?
I'm like, in no scenario in my entire life. Yep. Good. Good discussion.
All right, good questions. Keep sending them our way, and we'll continue to answer them. Final thoughts. You believe you can or believe you can't, you're right.
And until next time, go bills.
How Freight Brokers Find Customers | Episode 34885 / 100When Freight Goes Wrong Who Owns The Damage | Final Mile 14780 / 100Freight Claims Explained | Episode 34766 / 100The Pipe Stake Hustle That Won A Customer | Final Mile 14676 / 100Your SOPs Only Work When You Enforce Them | Episode 34668 / 100