No. MC-32783 SOUTHEASTERN GREYHOUND LINES SELF-INSURANCE Submitted July 5, 1944. Decided August 28, 1944 Application for authority to qualify as a self-insurer under section 215 approved. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEE, ROGERS, AND PATTERSON BY DIVISION 5: By application filed May 12, 1944, Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Lexington, Ky., seeks authority to self-insure under the provisions of section 215 of the Interstate Commerce Act. On August 3, 1936, acting under section 215, we prescribed rules and regulations governing the filing and approval of surety bonds, policies of insurance, qualifications as a self-insurer, or other securities and agreements, for motor carriers subject to the act. Rule V is as follows: The Commission will give consideration to and will approve the application of a motor carrier to qualify as a self-insurer if such carrier furnishes a true and accurate statement of its financial condition and other evidence which will establish to the satisfaction of the Commission the ability of such motor carrier to satisfy its obligations for bodily injury liability, property damage liability, or cargo liability without affecting the stability or permanency of the business of such motor carrier. Applicant owns 494 busses and is engaged in the transportation of passengers, baggage of passengers, express, mail, and newspapers as a common carrier by motor vehicle in the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia, together with chartered service to any point in the United States or Canada, as described in Docket No. MC-32783 and subnumbers thereunder. The compelling motive for applicant's desire to become a selfinsurer is economy of operation. Applicant's present insurance arrangements are based on a certain percentage premium per hundred dollars of revenue and other agreements which result in the company's having been practically a self-insurer for the past 5 years. In view of this, and of the fact that the company has a Safety and Claims Department which has been successfully functioning for the past 10 years, applicant feels that the public interest would be adequately served and that it would effect a substantial saving in operating cost if it is authorized to self-insure its operations. Applicant's financial condition is reflected in a balance sheet statement submitted with its application for authority to self-insure which shows assets as of March 31, 1944 of $15,342,813. Current assets were $8,388,304 of which $6,932,494 was in cash or temporary cash investments. Current liabilities were $7,858,344. Capital and surplus in excess of all liabilities amounted to $4,475,065. It appears that applicant possesses sufficient resources to meet the obligations with which it might be confronted as a self-insurer, arising out of its operations in interstate or foreign commerce as described herein, without affecting the stability or permanency of its business. Upon the information and facts submitted, we find that the application of Southeastern Greyhound Lines, or authority to self-insure, should be approved. An appropriate order will be entered. 43 M. C. C. No. MC-C-374 AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. ET AL. v. WILLIAM SCHAFER & SON, INC. Decided September 1, 1944 Defendant found to have complied only in part with prior order requiring resumption of reasonably continuous and adequate service as authorized in its certificate issued in No. MC-74651. Certificate revoked in part. Homer S. Carpenter and Griswold B. Holman for complainants. Edward Krowen for defendant. Herman B. J. Weckstein for intervener in support of defendant. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEE, ROGERS, AND PATTERSON BY DIVISION 5: By complaint filed March 12, 1943, Aero Mayflower Transit Co., Allied Van Lines, Inc., and Greyvan Lines, Inc., alleged that William Schafer & Son, Inc., of West Orange, N. J., the holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued in No. MC-74651 had not conducted any of the operations authorized by such certificate since it was issued, and asked that the certificate be revoked. The complaint was referred to an examiner for hearing and the recommendation of an appropriate order therein. After hearing, the examiner found that there had in fact been a cessation of the operations authorized. No exceptions were filed to the order recommended by the examiner, and on April 13, 1944, the recommended order became effective as our order. In the order, the defendant was notified and required within 30 days from April 13, 1944, to institute reasonably continuous and adequate service as authorized, and within 10 days thereafter to inform the Commission by affidavit of the manner and details of such compliance. Provision was made for a reply by the complainant to the affidavit. The certificate in question authorizes defendant to transport household goods as a common carrier by motor vehicle between points in Essex, Hudson, Union, Passaic, and Bergen Counties, N. J., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Giving the affidavit of compliance its maximum effect, it fails to show a bona fide resumption of operation by defend ant except possibly between points in Essex County, N. J., on the one hand, and points in the New York City commercial zone, as defined in New York, N. Y., Commercial Zone, 1 M. C. C. 665, 2 M. C. C. 191. Responsive to the requirement of the order of April 13, 1944, there was received from defendant on May 16, 1944, an affidavit of its treasurer to the effect that immediately upon receipt of the examiner's recommended report and order he had "made every effort to comply with full and complete operations;" that he had "made applications to the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island for the issuance of necessary certificates of operation" in such States; that he had submitted to these States proper certificates of insurance; that authority to operate had been granted by all such States to defendant; that through counsel inquiry had been made as to the requirements of the other States authorized to be served and replies received to the effect that no interstate operating authority was required therein; that defendant's continued participation in appropriate tariffs had been arranged; that insurance on file with this Commission had been checked and found proper; that "everything to qualify and operate” in all authorized States had been done; that affiant had "personally solicited and sought business from every possible source;" that he had communicated with numerous local and interstate truckmen and with former customers advising them of his readiness to serve to the extent authorized; that his truck was fully equipped for household-goods movings; that he held himself ready to engage in long-distance moving of household goods to the extent authorized; that he had refused no shipments and referred none to any other carrier; that he had in fact transported three described shipments; and that despite his solicitation no others had been offered. The three shipments actually transported moved as follows: On March 27, 1944, from Bronx, N. Y., to Irvington, N. J., on April 1, 1944, from Newark, N. J. to Flushing, Long Island, N. Y., and on the same day from Brooklyn, N. Y., to Belleville, N. J. The purpose of this report is to determine the adequacy of defendant's claimed compliance with the order of April 13, 1944. Complainants have filed a reply to defendant's affidavit asserting that the claimed compliance is perfunctory only; that defendant has never truly operated as authorized; that it does not now intend so to operate but seeks only to vitalize its certificate by an appearance of operation sufficiently to permit a sale thereof as indicated in the report of the examiner. In support of their position, they refer to repeated assertions of record by defendant to the effect that its time and equipment have been completely occupied with local operations at West Orange, N. J., and points to the failure of the compliance affidavit to show any arrangement whereby its facilities or its capacity have been increased. It is fundamental that a carrier status requires not only a holding out with ability and willingness to transport, but also some actual transportation consistent with such holding out. This, defendant has failed to show. It is authorized to operate between points in four very populous counties in New Jersey and points in seven seaboard States extending from Massachusetts to Virginia excluding Pennsylvania but including the District of Columbia. It asserts that "immediately upon receipt" of the examiner's recommended report it made every effort to operate as authorized. That report was served on March 11, 1944. The affidavit of compliance is dated May 15, 1944. In the intervening 2 months defendant did not transport a single shipment to or from any of the authorized States other than New York, and its service to New York was limited to one trip to the Bronx and one trip, with a load each way, to Long Island. All of these three shipments moved within the period of 1 week and less than a month after the service of the examiner's report. No shipments at all are shown to have moved in the 6 weeks which intervened between April 1 and May 15th, the date of the affidavit. The affidavit of compliance shows that defendant has arranged for such interstate operating authority as is required by the various States named in its certificate, but it wholly fails to show that its single unit of equipment has been licensed in any of these States or that such licensing is unnecessary. Although it shows that defendant's treasurer "personally solicited and sought business," it does not show any advertisement whatever of the service such as would be expected of one bona fide embarking upon a service of the scope authorized. The affidavit referring as it does to "my truck," negatives the availability for long-haul service of any equipment except that already shown by the record to be fully engaged in local service. Having in mind the character of household-goods traffic, it is appreciated, of course, that defendant might have experienced difficulty in developing, since the date of service of the examiner's report, any substantial volume of traffic or even traffic to all of the States authorized to be served, but the failure in more than 60 days to show the rendition of any long-haul service whatsoever cannot be so explained. The three local shipments shown to have been transported moved between points in Essex County, N. J., and points in the New York City commercial zone. They moved during the week beginning March 27. There have been no interstate movements even of a local character since that date. It might seriously be questioned whether defendant has actually bona fide resumed any part of its authorized operation. A bona fide local operation such as between New York |