Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission Issues Penalty Assessment Involving Tetris Moving Co.
* * *
To:
Revised Code of
On
* Fifteen violations of WAC 480-15-530 - Operating a motor vehicle without having in effect the required minimum levels of financial responsibility coverage. Tetris Moving failed to maintain the required public liability and property damage insurance. The Company allowed its drivers to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) without the required insurance on 15 occasions between
* Fifteen violations of WAC 480-15-550 - Operating a CMV without having adequate cargo insurance coverage. The Company operated a CMV without the required cargo insurance on 15 occasions between
* Three violations of WAC 480-15-555 - Failing to conduct or retain paperwork containing criminal background checks or hiring an individual with a disqualifying conviction for a household goods carrier in the state of
* One violation of 49 C.F.R. Sec. 393.41 - No or defective parking brake system on CMV. Commission staff (Staff) discovered a CMV with an inoperative parking brake system. This CMV was placed out-of-service./1
* Fifty-eight violations of 49 C.F.R. Sec. 395.8(a)(1) - Failing to require driver to make a record of duty status. The Company failed to require
The Commission considered the following factors in determining the appropriate penalties for these violations:
1. How serious or harmful the violations are to the public. The violations noted are serious and potentially harmful to the public. Household goods moving companies that: (1) operate CMVs without the required public liability and property damage insurance, (2) operate CMVs without the required cargo insurance, (3) fail to conduct criminal background checks on their employees, (4) use CMVs that are in need of repair, and (5) fail to maintain records of duty status, put their customers, their customers' belongings, and the traveling public at risk. These violations present significant safety concerns.
2. Whether the violations were intentional. Considerations include:
* Whether the Company ignored Staff's previous technical assistance; and
* Whether there is clear evidence through documentation or other means that shows the Company knew of and failed to correct the violation.
On
On
The Company knew or should have known about these requirements.
3. Whether the Company self-reported the violations. Tetris Moving did not self-report these violations.
4. Whether the Company was cooperative and responsive. The Company was cooperative and responsive during the on-site visit from Staff but was slow to provide additional information requested electronically by Staff.
5. Whether the Company promptly corrected the violations and remedied the impacts. Tetris Moving currently maintains the minimum required levels of public liability, property damage, and cargo insurance, and completed the criminal background check for employee
6. The number of violations. Staff identified 25 violation types with a total of 136 individual occurrences during the routine safety investigation of Tetris Moving. Of those violations, Staff identified five violation types with a total of 92 individual occurrences that warrant penalties in accordance with the Commission's Enforcement Policy.
7. The number of customers affected. Tetris Moving reported traveling 19,500 miles in 2021. These safety violations presented a public safety risk.
8. The likelihood of recurrence. Staff provided technical assistance with specific remedies to help the Company assess how well its safety management controls support safe operations and how to begin improving its safety performance. Staff believes the likelihood of recurrence is low if Tetris Moving prioritizes safe operations.
9. The Company's past performance regarding compliance, violations, and penalties. On
10. The Company's existing compliance program.
11. The size of the Company. Tetris Moving operates three CMVs and employs three drivers. The Company reported
The Commission's Enforcement Policy provides that some Commission requirements are so fundamental to safe operations that the Commission will issue mandatory penalties for each occurrence of a first-time violation./2 The Commission generally will assess penalties by violation category, rather than per occurrence, for first-time violations of those critical regulations that do not meet the requirements for mandatory penalties. The Commission will assess penalties for any equipment violation meeting the
The Commission has considered these factors and determined that it should penalize Tetris Moving
* Fifteen violations of WAC 480-15-530 - Operating a motor vehicle without having in effect the required minimum levels of financial responsibility coverage. The Commission assesses a penalty of
* Fifteen violations of WAC 480-15-550 - Operating a CMV without having adequate cargo insurance coverage. The Commission assesses a penalty of
* Three violations of WAC 480-15-555 - Failing to conduct or retain paperwork containing criminal background checks or hiring an individual with a disqualifying conviction for a household goods carrier in the state of
* One violation of 49 C.F.R. Sec. 393.41 - No or defective parking brake system on CMV. The Commission assesses a penalty of
* Fifty-eight violations of 49 C.F.R. Sec. 395.8(a)(1) - Failing to require driver to make a record of duty status. The Commission assesses a "per category" penalty of
This information, if proven at a hearing and not rebutted or explained, is sufficient to support the Penalty Assessment.
Your penalty is due and payable now. If you believe any or all the violations did not occur, you may deny committing the violation(s) and contest the penalty through evidence presented at a hearing or in writing. Alternatively, if there is a reason for any or all the violations that you believe should excuse you from the penalty, you may ask for mitigation (reduction) of the penalty through evidence presented at a hearing or in writing. The Commission will grant a request for hearing only if material issues of law or fact require consideration of evidence and resolution in a hearing. Any request to contest the violation(s) or for mitigation of the penalty must include a written statement of the reasons supporting that request. Failure to provide such a statement will result in denial of the request. See RCW 81.04.405.
If you properly present your request for a hearing and the Commission grants that request, the Commission will review the evidence supporting your dispute of the violation(s) or application for mitigation in a Brief Adjudicative Proceeding before an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge will consider the evidence and will notify you of their decision.
You must act within 15 days after receiving this notice to do one of the following:
* Pay the amount due.
* Contest the occurrence of the violation(s).
* Admit the violations but request mitigation of the penalty amount.
Please indicate your selection on the enclosed form and submit it electronically through the Commission's web portal within FIFTEEN (15) days after you receive this Penalty Assessment. If you are unable to use the web portal, you may submit it via email to [email protected]. If you are unable to submit the form electronically, you may send a paper copy to the
If you do not act within 15 days, the Commission may take additional enforcement action, including but not necessarily limited to suspending or revoking your certificate to provide regulated service, assessing additional penalties, or referring this matter to the
DATED at
/s/
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Vehicle Identification Number 1GDJ7C1C14F901757.
2/ Docket A-120061 - Enforcement Policy of the
* * *
Original text here: https://apiproxy.utc.wa.gov/cases/GetDocument?docID=5&year=2022&docketNumber=220659
Louisiana Citizens wants 63% rate increase for homeowners' policies amid failures [The Advocate, Baton Rouge, La.]
European Commission Calls on Slovak Insurance Supervisor to Take Measures in Order to Ensure Compliance With Union Law
Advisor News
- Is there a mismatch between advisor marketing and consumer preferences?
- State health plan users may see premium increases under SC House budget proposal
- Advisor: SEC trying to ambush my defense on bad annuity sales charges
- Partner split: Grant Cardone and Gary Brecka swap charges in dueling lawsuits
- 4 things every federal worker should do to safeguard their benefits
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
- President of Insurance Brokerage Firm and CEO of Marketing Company Charged in $161M Affordable Care Act Enrollment Fraud Scheme
- STATEHOUSE: Senate Republicans approve limiting health insurance program for Hoosiers
- State health plan users may see premium increases under SC House budget proposal
- Senate Republicans approve limits on health insurance program
- Health agents ‘optimistic’ as a new administration takes charge
More Health/Employee Benefits NewsLife Insurance News
- Whole life vs. term life: The great debate
- Prudential launches OneLeave
- Annual financial and audit reports – JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
- Conning research: Insurers must be flexible in the 2025
- AM Best Places Credit Ratings of Banner Life Insurance Company and William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York Under Review With Developing Implications
More Life Insurance News