Author: Edgar Davison
Carriers: ever hauled a load, delivered it clean, and still didn’t get paid?
You’re not alone. In the wild world of freight, this is more common than you think. And while it may feel unfair, there’s good news—you may still have a strong legal right to collect. Courts across the country have spoken, and they’ve been clear: if you did the work, someone still has to pay.
Let’s break down how this happens, what the law says, and how carriers can push back and get paid.
Here’s the scenario:
Legally? It is their problem.
This situation is called “double payment.” The shipper has to pay twice: once to the broker, and again to the carrier who actually did the work.
Why? Because the carrier is entitled to compensation under the bill of lading contract—and courts overwhelmingly hold that the shipper (or consignee) bears the risk of broker non-payment.
Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 513 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2008)
The Ninth Circuit held that even though the broker agreed to pay the carrier, Sears remained liable under the bill of lading. The court ruled that “payment to a broker does not discharge the shipper’s obligation to the carrier unless the carrier expressly agreed to release the shipper” (id. at 954).
Excel Transp. Servs., Inc. v. CSX Lines, LLC, 280 F. Supp. 2d 617 (S.D. Tex. 2003)
The shipper paid a forwarder, who failed to pay the carrier. The court ruled the shipper was still liable:
“As between an innocent carrier and an innocent shipper, the law places the risk of broker nonpayment on the shipper.”
(Id. at 619.)
Ranger Transp., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 903 F.2d 1185 (8th Cir. 1990)
Ranger warned Wal-Mart that the broker wasn’t paying. Wal-Mart kept paying the broker. The court held Wal-Mart liable for the unpaid charges, reasoning that once warned, the shipper bears the consequences (Id. at 1188).
Spedag Americas, Inc. v. Peters Hosp. & Ent. Grp., LLC, No. 07-21910-CIV, 2008 WL 3889551 (S.D. Fla. 2008)
Even though the consignees paid a broker who later filed bankruptcy, the court held them jointly liable to the carrier, reinforcing that payment to an intermediary doesn’t cut off liability unless the carrier has released the shipper.
Harms Farms Trucking v. Woodland Container, No. 8:05CV390, 2006 WL 3483920 (D. Neb. 2006)
The court held Kawasaki, the consignee, liable for unpaid charges—even though it had paid the shipper—because the carrier had not been paid and the load was delivered.
National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia v. Omni Lines, Inc., 106 F.3d 1544 (11th Cir. 1997)
The Eleventh Circuit explained that the bill of lading is a contract between carrier and shipper. If the carrier isn’t paid, the shipper remains liable unless it got an explicit release from the carrier (Id. at 1547).
The legal system is overwhelmingly on the side of the carrier when payment falls through due to a failed broker. The key principles are:
Courts have rejected estoppel arguments, “I already paid,” and “that’s not my problem” defenses over and over again. If the freight moved, you are owed compensation.
If this has happened to you—if you've been ghosted after delivery—don’t write it off as a loss.
You may be entitled to collect directly from the shipper or consignee, depending on the facts and how the bills of lading and contracts were executed.
Your delivery, your driver’s signature, and your paperwork may be all you need.
Questions or Claims?
I'm here to help.
Edgar Davison, Attorney at Law
📍 6000 Poplar Ave, Suite 250, Memphis, TN
📧 [email protected]et
📞 (901)230-7749
If you’re a carrier looking to recover what you're owed, I can walk you through your options and help you assert your legal rights.
You moved the load. You deserve to get paid.
Reach out to Davison Law Firm, Nationwide transportation law experts. Fill out the form below to request expert legal assistance tailored to your needs.