CarrierMark
FMCSA Compliance
CarrierMark Verified Scorecard
Lone Star Freight LLC
USDOT 3987541 · MC-987654 · 6 units
As of Jul 14, 2026
Rule library v1.0 · eff. Jun 1, 2026
C
Grade
Compliance Status
0/100
At Risk
Would this survive a DOT audit?
Gaps an auditor would cite
This file would mostly clear an audit but carries high litigation exposure. That gap is what a plaintiff's lawyer attacks.
D
Grade
Litigation Exposure
0/100
High
How badly does this play in litigation?
Strong negligence hooks exist

Built for underwriting. CSA scores tell you a carrier's roadside history. The Exposure grade tells you how a file plays after a crash: the litigation risk no other score prices.

Federal Safety Record (FMCSA)

Public USDOT data folded into the score, not an official safety rating

Official FMCSA Rating
Unrated
No compliance review on file
Authority
Active
Common / Contract
Insurance
On file
BIPD $1,000,000
Vehicle OOS
27.3%
Nat'l avg 21.3%
Driver OOS
7.1%
Nat'l avg 5.5%
Inspections
22
24-month roadside
Crashes
3
0 fatal · 1 injury
CarrierMark safety signal
CarrierMark's own read of the public measures
Elevated
Source: public FMCSA SAFER / MCMIS data for USDOT 3987541, snapshot Jun 12, 2026. CSA BASIC percentiles are not shown (FAST Act §5223).

Broker Selection Risk

If you tender a load to this carrier: your negligent-selection exposure

MODERATE selection risk

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II (2026) let negligent-selection claims proceed against brokers. A broker or shipper that tendered a load to Lone could own that choice. These are the public red flags a reasonable vetting process would have surfaced first.

  • Unrated: no compliance review on file
    No federal rating exists, so a broker must do more of its own vetting.
  • Vehicle out-of-service rate above the national average
    27.3% vs 21.3% national.
  • Driver out-of-service rate above the national average
    7.1% vs 5.5% national.
  • Reported crashes on the public record
    3 reported crashes.
Scored only on public, pre-selection-knowable signals (Loyd v. Salazar: exposure turns on what was reasonably knowable, not hindsight). An informational risk read, not legal advice.

Why this grade

12 open findings · ranked by litigation exposure weight

1
Diana Ruiz is operating with an expired medical examiner's certificate (lapsed 9 days ago).Part 391 · 49 CFR 391.43Diana Ruiz

A driver who is not medically certified is, by regulation, not qualified to operate a CMV. Plaintiff's counsel frames every mile driven after the lapse as a knowing dispatch of an unqualified driver: direct support for negligent entrustment and a punitive-damages hook.

Exposure 5/5
2
No pre-employment full Clearinghouse query on file for Sofia Marchetti, who is dispatched and driving.Part 382 · 49 CFR 382.701(a)Sofia Marchetti

The pre-employment full query is a federal precondition to letting a driver perform safety-sensitive functions. Its absence is the cleanest possible negligent-hiring exhibit: the carrier put a driver on the road without confirming she was eligible. Reads terribly to a jury.

Exposure 5/5
3
Annual limited Clearinghouse query for Bill Hargrove is 14 days overdue; prior query returned a violation.Part 382 · 49 CFR 382.701(b)Bill Hargrove

An overdue annual query on a driver with a prior Clearinghouse violation is a retention problem with teeth. Plaintiff argues the carrier had actual notice of a drug/alcohol violation and failed to keep monitoring: close to willful for punitive purposes.

Exposure 5/5
4
Pre-employment controlled-substances test result is missing from Sofia Marchetti's file.Part 382 · 49 CFR 382.301Sofia Marchetti

Stacked on the missing Clearinghouse query, the absent pre-employment drug test makes the negligent-hiring case nearly self-proving. Two independent gating requirements skipped for the same new hire.

Exposure 5/5
5
Annual MVR review for Travis Boyd is overdue by 31 days.Part 391 · 49 CFR 391.25Travis Boyd

The lapsed annual MVR review is the standard opening move in a negligent-retention case. A modest audit item, but in litigation it lets plaintiff argue the carrier stopped watching the driving record of a driver who is still on the road. The gap between regulatory severity and exposure is the whole point.

Exposure 5/5
6
Unit 33 was placed out of service at a roadside inspection (3 defects) and the repair certification is not yet on file.Part 396 · 49 CFR 396.9Unit 33

An out-of-service vehicle returning to operation without certified repairs is direct evidence of an unfit-equipment claim. Plaintiff pairs it with the maintenance file to argue the carrier prioritized uptime over safety.

Exposure 4/5
7
Unit 33's periodic annual inspection lapsed 15 days ago.Part 396 · 49 CFR 396.17Unit 33

A lapsed 396.17 inspection on the same unit that just failed roadside compounds the equipment-fitness narrative. Two independent records pointing at the same truck is exactly the pattern plaintiff's reconstruction expert looks for.

Exposure 4/5
8
Two open HOS violations on Diana Ruiz's ELD records, plus 47 minutes of unassigned driving time.Part 395 · 49 CFR 395.8Diana Ruiz

Open hours-of-service violations paired with unassigned driving feed a fatigue theory and suggest records that don't reconcile. Plaintiff's expert uses unassigned drive time to argue the carrier can't account for who was behind the wheel.

Exposure 4/5
Two independent scores, never collapsedScored against the CarrierMark rule library v1.0: CFR-cited rules across 49 C.F.R. Parts 391 / 382 / 396 / 395How this grade is calculated →

CarrierMark is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the FMCSA or U.S. DOT. The CarrierMark Score is an independent, informational assessment computed from public data and is not an official FMCSA safety rating or safety fitness determination.

Verified by CarrierMark as of Jul 14, 2026. This scorecard reflects the carrier's file at the time of generation.
Monitor this carrier with CarrierMark