Vented Van

[arrow]

I’m curious about your thoughts on this. Some produce loads can be shipped using either a vented van or a reefer. Certain reefers have a vent in the front and an inspection door in the back, essentially turning them into an insulated vented van if the reefer unit isn’t running (let’s call it a vented reefer).

What happens if one of these loads gets rejected, like the receiver claims quality or temperature issues, and it’s in a vented reefer?

Would the carrier face liability if the rate confirmation specifies vented van or reefer, and they choose to use a vented reefer?

Also, can temperature even be a valid reason for rejection on a vented van load?

[Maurec3]

First, it’s important to know that most produce is considered an exempt commodity, meaning insurance typically doesn’t cover it. The carrier is responsible in these cases.

If a load gets rejected, brokers often try to find a buyer willing to take it at a lower price. However, there’s a scam to watch out for: some receivers reject loads just so the product can be sold to another buyer who might actually be owned by the original receiver. Unfortunately, this happens more often than you’d think.

[Drifter]

If the rate confirmation specifies vented van, then it must be a vented van. If it says vented reefer, then you must use a vented reefer. If it allows for either, then you have the flexibility to choose.

However, if you don’t use the specified equipment, you’re opening yourself up to a claim. The equipment listed on the rate confirmation is key, so always follow what’s stated to avoid issues.