- 70 -70
been responsible, presumably under the doctrine of respondeat
superior or a similar doctrine, for all liabilities and losses
arising from the negligent and/or wrongful acts of such driver-
employee. However, each trucking company client apparently
received no consideration for its agreement under the indemnifi-
cation provision on which petitioner relies to indemnify TLC for
liabilities and losses arising from the negligent and/or wrongful
acts of each driver-employee whom it leased from TLC, which may
be construed as implicitly acknowledging that, at least with
respect to such liabilities and losses, such trucking company
client did not consider TLC to be the employer of such driver-
employee.
We turn now to petitioner’s argument that TLC’s opportunity
for profit was “from its payroll and payroll-related services.”
We reject petitioner’s characterization of the services that TLC
provided to its trucking company clients as payroll and payroll-
related services. We have found that TLC was in the business of
leasing driver-employees to trucking company clients. Nonethe-
less, we find merit in petitioner’s suggestion that TLC’s oppor-
tunity for profit from TLC’s business was limited. That was
because the amount of TLC’s gross profit under an exclusive lease
agreement with a trucking company client was not affected by any
changes (e.g., increasing or decreasing the per diem percentage)
in the factor used to compute the lease fee to which TLC was
Page: Previous 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011