Case Study 1 of 5
Midwest Industrial Distributor, Illinois
What we found
- Freight class billed at 92.5 — density supports Class 70. The shipment was 4,200 lbs of steel machine parts on 6 pallets at 48"×40"×36" each. That's 240 cubic feet. Density: 17.5 lbs/cuft. The NMFTA density table puts 17.5 lbs/cuft in Class 70 — two full class tiers below what Old Dominion charged. Linehaul overcharge: $315.00.
- Fuel surcharge applied at 27.5% — published rate was 24.5%. ODFL's published FSC schedule for the week of the shipment shows 24.5%. The 3-point gap on a $1,419.60 linehaul produced an excess fuel charge of $42.59.
- Liftgate fee of $145.00 charged to a commercial loading dock. The destination was a Detroit auto parts plant with dock access and forklifts. ODFL's liftgate fee is for locations that lack a dock. The plant has one. The fee has no basis here: $145.00.
Disputable overcharges identified
$502.59
All three findings high-confidence. Density calculation uses carrier's own invoice data. Fuel rate sourced from ODFL's public schedule and EIA On-Highway Diesel index.
How
The misclassification dispute cites NMFTA NMFC 100 Series density-based classification table and NMFC Item 133440 (steel machine parts, crated). Density was computed from the carrier's own declared dimensions and weight. The fuel surcharge dispute cites ODFL's published FSC table and the EIA On-Highway Diesel Price index for the shipment week. The liftgate dispute cites ODFL Tariff 560 and 49 CFR Part 374 — charges must reflect services rendered.
What happened next
Dispute letters were prepared for all three findings and submitted to Old Dominion's claims department. Old Dominion acknowledged receipt. Resolution is pending. The shipper now has the density calculation on file for every future ODFL shipment on this lane.
Case Study 2 of 5
Pacific Northwest Food Producer, Oregon
What we found
- Residential delivery fee ($145.00) applied to a commercial grocery warehouse. The consignee was Sierra Valley Grocery Distribution Center in Sacramento — a commercial facility with dock levelers and forklifts. Estes's residential delivery fee is for non-commercial, dock-free addresses. This one is neither.
- Liftgate and residential delivery fees stacked on the same delivery. These are mutually exclusive under Estes's tariff structure. Both charges imply the location has no dock. Applying both to a commercial warehouse is a textbook accessorial stacking error: $310.00 combined.
- Reweigh fee of $65.00 charged with zero weight change. The carrier's own invoice notes show BOL weight: 2,180 lbs; inspected weight: 2,180 lbs. No difference. No billing adjustment. Carrier charged for a reweigh that changed nothing: $65.00.
- Invoice arithmetic error: $65.00 overstatement. We added up every line item: $1,225.00 + $247.50 + $165.00 + $145.00 + $65.00 = $1,847.50. Estes's invoice stated $1,912.50. The shipper paid $65.00 more than the sum of Estes's own line items.
High-confidence disputable overcharges
$275.00
Residential fee ($145), reweigh with no weight change ($65), and invoice arithmetic error ($65) are all high-confidence. Liftgate fee ($165) pending verification — if facility used no liftgate, total rises to $440.
How
The residential delivery dispute cites Estes's own tariff definition — residential delivery applies to non-commercial addresses without dock access. A commercial grocery distribution center does not qualify. The accessorial stacking dispute notes that Estes's liftgate and residential delivery fees are mutually exclusive categories. The reweigh fee dispute cites Estes's own invoice records (identical BOL and inspected weights) and 49 CFR Part 374. The arithmetic error is self-documenting: line items vs. stated total.
What happened next
Dispute letters were submitted for the residential delivery fee, reweigh fee, and arithmetic error. Estes was asked to provide liftgate service documentation. All findings are under review. The shipper was advised to send additional invoices — stacking and arithmetic errors of this type are rarely isolated to a single bill.
Case Study 3 of 5
Texas Printing Company, Dallas
What we found
- Wrong discount applied: 42% instead of 48% per contract. XPO's own invoice cites contract XPO-DAL-2024-0891 and states the terms. XPO applied 42% anyway. On a $5,199.84 gross linehaul, that 6-point mistake costs the shipper $312.00 per load.
- Absolute minimum charge ($385.00) applied to a $3,016 shipment. XPO's minimum charge triggers only when the calculated linehaul falls below $385.00 — for tiny shipments. This shipment has a linehaul of $3,015.91. The minimum charge does not apply here. XPO charged it anyway: $385.00 with no tariff basis.
- Above-market base rate on the Dallas–Atlanta lane. DAT benchmarking puts the current market rate around $2,513 per load for this lane, class, and weight. XPO is billing $503 per load above that at the current contract rate. At 12 loads per month: $6,036/year above the market median. Not a dispute — a renegotiation target for the next contract cycle.
Total freight savings opportunity
$14,400
Per year, at current shipment volume. $697 in disputable overcharges on the audited invoice ($312 discount error + $385 minimum charge). Applied across 12 loads/month: $8,364/year from disputes. Plus $6,036/year from base rate renegotiation. Total: $14,400/year.
How
The discount dispute cites contract XPO-DAL-2024-0891 (48% discount, effective January 1, 2025) and XPO's own invoice, which names the contract and then applied 42%. The minimum charge dispute cites XPO Tariff 100 Series, Item 975: AMC applies only when the calculated linehaul falls below the stated minimum. The linehaul here is $3,015.91 — $2,630.91 above the $385 floor. Both findings also cite 49 CFR Part 374. The above-market rate finding uses DAT LTL lane data for Dallas TX–Atlanta GA at Class 85, 3,000–4,999 lb weight break.
What happened next
Dispute letters were prepared for the discount shortfall and minimum charge, with the contract reference and rate calculations attached. The above-market base rate finding was packaged as a briefing for the shipper's next XPO contract negotiation. Combined, these two actions represent $14,400 per year in freight savings at current shipping volume.
Case Study 4 of 5
Southeast Auto Parts Supplier, Charlotte, NC
What we found
- Freight class billed at 85 — density supports Class 65. The shipment was 3,600 lbs of steel brake assemblies in original manufacturer cartons on 4 pallets at 48"×40"×32" each. Total cubic footage: 170.7 cu ft. Density: 21.1 lbs/cu ft. The NMFTA density table puts 21.1 lbs/cu ft squarely in Class 65 — two tiers below what R+L billed. Linehaul overcharge: $228.00.
- Same PRO number billed twice in the same 30-day cycle. PRO number RL-2024-447821 appeared on billing statements dated October 3 and October 18 — same origin, same destination, same weight, same amount. Two identical invoices for one shipment. Duplicate charge: $1,847.60.
- Inside delivery fee of $175.00 charged — no inside delivery was performed. R+L's inside delivery accessorial applies when the driver physically moves freight past the dock threshold into the facility. The consignee is a commercial auto parts warehouse with a staffed dock and forklifts. The receiving dock supervisor confirmed no inside delivery was requested or performed. The fee has no basis: $175.00.
Disputable overcharges identified
$2,250
All three findings high-confidence. Duplicate billing is self-documenting — same PRO, two statements. Class error uses carrier's own declared dimensions. Inside delivery denial on file from the consignee.
How
The misclassification dispute cites NMFTA NMFC 100 Series density table and NMFC Item 133440 (steel automotive parts), with density computed from R+L's own declared dimensions and weight. The duplicate billing dispute presents both billing statements side-by-side with matching PRO numbers. The inside delivery dispute cites R+L's tariff definition of inside delivery and a written statement from the consignee's dock supervisor confirming no service was rendered, supported by 49 CFR Part 374 (charges must reflect services actually performed).
What happened next
Dispute letters were submitted for all three findings simultaneously. R+L reversed the duplicate invoice immediately upon presentation of the two matching billing statements — no further documentation was required. The freight class and inside delivery disputes are under carrier review. The shipper was advised to audit prior statements for additional instances of duplicate PRO billing on this account.
Case Study 5 of 5
Ohio E-Commerce Retailer, Columbus, OH
What we found
- Dimensional weight applied to a density-rated LTL shipment — $445.00 phantom charge. FedEx Freight's LTL pricing is density-based; dimensional weight is a parcel-service construct (FedEx Ground, UPS, USPS). It does not apply to LTL freight. FedEx applied a dimensional divisor to this shipment, inflating the billable weight from 840 lbs to 1,340 lbs. The 500-lb phantom weight increase, applied to the linehaul rate, generated a charge of $445.00 with no contractual or tariff basis.
- Residential delivery fee of $145.00 applied to a commercial fulfillment center. The consignee was a 3PL warehouse in Smyrna, TN — a 180,000 sq ft commercial facility with a freight dock and ten loading bays. FedEx Freight's residential delivery accessorial applies to non-commercial addresses without dock access. This facility has both: $145.00 with no basis.
- Fuel surcharge applied at Zone 4 rate; Columbus–Nashville falls in Zone 2. FedEx Freight's FSC schedule is tiered by lane distance. Zone 2 covers moves up to 500 miles. Columbus, OH to Nashville, TN is 317 miles — well inside Zone 2. FedEx billed Zone 4. The difference: 2.8 percentage points on a $1,622.50 linehaul = $45.43 overcharge.
Disputable overcharges identified
$635
All three findings high-confidence. Dimensional weight on LTL is a tariff-level error — not a judgment call. Residential fee and zone error are documented against FedEx's own published schedules and the facility address record.
How
The dimensional weight dispute cites FedEx Freight's LTL tariff (density-based rating) and FedEx's own service guide, which clearly limits dimensional weight pricing to parcel services. The residential delivery dispute cites FedEx Freight's accessorial definition and the consignee's commercial facility address and SIC code. The zone error dispute cites FedEx Freight's published FSC zone schedule and the lane mileage (317 miles, Columbus OH to Nashville TN) calculated from origin and destination ZIP codes.
What happened next
Dispute letters were submitted for all three findings. FedEx acknowledged the dimensional weight error, noting it as a "system classification issue," and reversed the $445.00 charge within five business days. The residential delivery fee and zone error disputes are pending carrier review. The shipper was advised to flag all future FedEx Freight invoices for dimensional weight entries — if it appeared once, the billing system may repeat it.
What's on your invoices?
Send us two or three invoices and we'll show you exactly what we find — same format, same detail, within 24 hours. Free. No broker switch. No credit card.
Get your free audit