Bits & Pieces

Volume 21, Edition 9

Good day CAB Nation!

My goodness, autumn has arrived and I couldn’t be more excited.  I always look forward to fall as it signifies cooling of the temperatures and the start of the vibrant fall colors.  However, this year is special for me as I’m roughly one month into my career at CAB as the Sr. Vice President.  Although my time has been short here, I have enjoyed getting to know my co-workers and many of our subscribers.  I’ve always known CAB was a customer driven company, but that has become even more evident for me in the last month.  Our team continues to develop our products to make them even more vital to our customer processes.

If you have thoughts or suggestions on how to improve our tools and resources, I encourage you to reach out to myself or one of our team members.  We will be happy to work with you.

Our goal with Bits n Pieces is to share with you relevant news and resources that will keep you informed and on top of what’s happening in the transportation risk world.

This month we report:

The week of September 9th was Truck Driver Appreciation Week.  The American Trucking Association celebrated the first truck driver appreciation week back in 1998.  20 years later it has grown in momentum and popularity.  Although this year’s event has past, I’d encourage you and your organization to get involved at the local, state or national level to show appreciation for the men and women that deliver everything from fresh apples to zinc.  The dates for the 2019 National Truck Driver Appreciation Week are September 9-15th.

2018 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics was released by the FMCSA the first week of September.  The pocket guide is an annual release that details inspections/investigations and general trucking statistics.  The data compiled is from 2017.  Last year, 3.5 million inspections were conducted, an increase of more than 50,000 from the previous year, but a reduction from the recent high of 56,000 in 2013.  Interesting to note, more than 86% of interstate freight carriers had no safety rating.  Roughly 10% had a “satisfactory” rating, 3.5 percent had a “conditional” rating and less than one percent had an “unsatisfactory” rating.  You can access the guide by clicking this link.  2018 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics

Drivers with properly managed Diabetes no longer prohibited from operating Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) interstate.  Prior to this ruling, drivers with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus (ITDM) were prohibited from operating by the FMCSA unless they were able to obtain a waiver.  Under the new ruling, a Certified Medical Examiner (CME) can grant an individual with ITMD a medical examiners certificate from up to 12 months.  The treating provider that prescribes the insulin must provide the ITDM assessment for to the CME indicating a stable insulin regimen and control of the disease.

Bridgestone and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recalled roughly truck 2700 tires due to exposed steel cords resulting in rapid air loss that can increase the risk of a crash.  The two entities have established a plan to replace the tires.  For more information go to and search Campaign Number 18T011000.

HOS Commend Period Extended.  The FMCSA has extended the comment period for its advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for potential changes to the hours-of-service rules.  A number of national transportation and safety organizations including the American Trucking Association and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance requested the extension.  Comments can be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal and listening sessions.  The four areas of the HOS rules the FMCSA is considering changes to are:

-Expanding the current 100 air-mile short-haul exemption from 12 hours on duty to 14 hours on duty, to be consistent with the rules for long-haul truck drivers;

-Extending the current 14-hour on-duty limitation by up to two hours when a truck driver encounters adverse driving conditions;

-Revising the current mandatory 30-minute break for truck drivers who drive after the 8th hour of their workday; and

-Reinstating the option for splitting up the required 10-hour off-duty rest break for drivers operating trucks equipped with a sleeper berth.

The updated release and additional information can be found here.

CVSA reported on September 12 that the International Roadcheck 2018 out-of-service rates drop from 2017.  CVSA reported that there was a 1.4% decrease in the Out-of-Service rate for Level 1 inspections.  Similarly there was a .08% decrease in all drivers placed out-of-service for all Level I, II & III inspections.  The top out-of-service violation for vehicles was brake systems and Hours of Service for Drivers.  The three-day safety blitz was conducted from June 5-7, 2018.  During this time 67,502 inspections took place.



The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s order finding that a claim under the Carmack Amendment against a rail carrier was untimely. While there was a nine month claim requirement the Court held that the plaintiff has complied in a timely manner. The Court held that there was a question of fact on whether a related party who was presenting a claim was subject to contractual terms that it was not privy to. Whatley v. Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, 2018 WL 4374897

Can a motor carrier be brought back into a cargo claim through a third party action by a joint tortfeasor? The Middle District of Pennsylvania held that they could be brought back in, denying summary judgment to the motor carrier and concluding that the claim for indemnity and contribution was not barred by the Carmack Amendment. Helvetia Swiss Ins. Co. v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160079.

A truck broker was partially successful in avoiding a motion to dismiss its claims against a motor carrier for non-delivery of a series of shipments. The Northern District of Illinois held that the broker sufficiently alleged that it was assigned the rights of the customer. The court held that the only claim was one which was subject to the Carmack Amendment and dismissed all other claims as preempted, including a claim for attorney’s fees and punitive damages. Coyote Logistics v. MPJ Trucking, 2018 WL 4144628

Over in the Western District of Pennsylvania a broker was permitted to assert a claim against the carrier for lost profits when the customer did not pay after a transit loss. It was not permitted to sue for anticipated damages which might occur if the customer sued the broker. The Court also held that the broker was not a third party beneficiary of the shipper’s cargo policy and could not assert a claim under that policy. Pittsburgh Logistics Systems,  Inc. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc. 2018 WL 4096282

A cargo claimant was awarded prejudgment interest when recovering on a cargo claim in the District of New Jersey. While the court awarded the judgment it refused plaintiff’s demand for a higher interest rate, noting that the fluctuating interest rate during the prejudgment period was a more appropriate option. Tryg Insurance Co. v. C.H. Robinson, 2018 WL 4146601

The Court did not fully dismiss a motor carrier’s efforts to seek a declaration as to the extent of its liability for a cargo loss. The Southern District of Florida held that plaintiff was not required to include other entities in the transportation line for the action to proceed, but did hold that the motor carrier had filed a “shotgun” complaint and needed to amend the complaint to more adequately address the facts in order to proceed with the case. Central Transport v. Global Aeroleasing, Inc., 2018 WL 4268887

When a truck is damaged while being transported by a tow company the Carmack Amendment does not apply to the claim. The 6th Circuit held that the emergency towing of an accidentally wrecked or disabled vehicle was exempt from federal jurisdiction and therefore the Carmack Amendment did not apply. Acuity Insurance Co. v. McDonald’s Towing and Rescue, 2018 WL 4096094

Preemption ruled the day in the District Court in West Virginia. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s state law claims arising from a claim for damage to household goods. Dzingeleski v. Allied Van Lines, 2018 WL 4224450.

The same did not hold true however when the plaintiff sought compensation for damages which occurred either during or in anticipation of transit or during long term storage. The Eastern District of West Virginia held that while a claim for transit damage was subject to the Carmack Amendment, the same did not hold true to a claim that damage occurred during long term storage. Nachman v. Seaford Transfer, 2018 WL 4186397

Physical Damage

Invoking the appraisal process on a pd claim will not necessarily preclude a claim for bad faith. The Court of Appeals in Colorado held that while the appraisal process was enforceable and results in a binding determination of the value of the tractor is did not resolve the insurance company’s liability for breach of contract or statutory bad faith. The case was remanded for reinstatement of the complaint for bad faith. Andres Trucking Co. v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 2018 Colo. App LEXIS 1327.


The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that a motor carrier’s liability for negligent entrustment of a vehicle to an unfit employee was a cause of action which was separate from a claim of respondeat superior. Even when the motor carrier concedes vicarious liability for the actions of the driver the claim of negligent entrustment was not barred. Fox v. Mize, 2018 WL 441782

The District Court in Illinois upheld a denial of a motor carrier’s request for summary judgment. The motor carrier sought dismissal of the claim that it ratified the actions of the driver in falsifying records. As there remained the potential for a jury to find that the motor carrier deliberately chose to ignore the actions of the driver summary judgment was inappropriate. Langan v. Rasmussen, 2018 WL 4148842

A plaintiff in the Southern District in West Virginia was not permitted to collect under an MCS-90 issued on behalf of a trucking company when the transport involved was intra-state. The court also held that as the plaintiff recovered more than the financial responsibility from another insurer for the motor carrier no MCS-90 payment would be permitted. Finally the court noted that the plaintiff would be obligated to indemnify the insurer for any payment it might have paid because the plaintiff had agreed to indemnify the motor carrier when it settled the loss. As the motor carrier was obligated to indemnify an insurer who makes an MCS-90 payment, the circle of indemnity would require the plaintiff to pay back any money it might receive. Lyles v. FTL, Inc. 2018 WL 4343415

Simply because the motor carrier has a designated agent for service of process, as per the requirements of the BOC-3 filing, the motor carrier will not be subject to jurisdiction in a venue with no connection to the accident. The District of Vermont transferred a personal injury action arising out of truck accident in another venue where there was no other evidence of contact with the state of Vermont by the motor carrier. Hegemann v. M&M Am, 2018 U.S. Dist LEXIS 160683

Claims for negligent entrustment, punitive damages and attorney’s fees were dismissed against a motor carrier and a leasing company in the Southern District of Ohio. The court also held that there was no such thing as negligent leasing or loss of consortium for a fiancé, dismissing those causes of action. Moran v. Ruan Logistics, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159648

Watch that statute of limitation. The District Court in Connecticut held that the filing of a complaint by UPS against a second trucking company for a personal injury accident was time barred. Although counsel tried to get the suit in under the gun they were unsuccessful. However they were not barred from asserting counter-claims in a second suit as the applicable Connecticut statute of limitation was not applicable to counter-claims – saved by the bell. Boahen v. Trifiletti, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160276

Admitting liability for a truck accident will not allow a motor carrier to seek a ruling that the plaintiff and witness cannot testify as to the facts of the accident and the apparent speed of the driver. And while the plaintiff and the witnesses cannot reach a conclusion about the medical condition of the plaintiff they can testify as to the symptoms. Bishop v. Anderson, 2018 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 159636

Over in the District Court in Connecticut the court held that the MCS-90 endorsement did apply to an intra-state transport as the Connecticut legislation expanded its applicability to intra-state transport. The court also held that the insurer was not entitled to summary judgment that the hired cargo coverage would not provide coverage when the insured hired the car from a related company, or that various provisions of the policy precluded coverage or that it had no committed bad faith in failing to address the claim or provide a defense to the motor carriers. Veilleux v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance Co. 2018 WL 4374073

Bad faith was not an option for one plaintiff in the Northern District of Illinois. While the court concluded that the motor carrier’s insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify the shipper for injuries which occurred during the loading process, its actions were not in bad faith. The court concluded that the shipper was using the motor carrier’s tractor, a requirement to trigger the motor carrier’s policy. National Casualty Co v. South Shore Iron Works,2018 WL 4469017

When a trucking company drove onto and damaged a high school’s track it was liable only to substantially restore the track to its precondition. The District Court in Connecticut held that the school was not entitled to a complete make over. Borough of Naugatuck v. Knight Transportation, 2018 WL 3431160.

The Supreme Court in Alabama held that an injured driver who failed to exercise due diligence in determining who else should be named in a suit was barred from seeking to relate his amendment back to the original complaint to add additional parties. The court denied the request for a writ of mandamus. Ex Parte American Sweeping, Inc. 2018 WL 4177528.

A township seeking recovery for attorney’s fees as part of its tort claim against a trucking for damaging a historic bridge was thwarted in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The court accepted that the American Rule, which precludes recovery of attorney’s fees, should be applied as the plaintiff had failed to support any reason why the rule should not be applicable. South Middleton Township v. Amerifreight Systems, 2018 WL 4207765

Even though a plaintiff filed a suit alleging that it was a citizen of Texas he was permitted to allege it was a citizen of Mexico in a second suit. As the plaintiff and the motor carrier were both Mexican citizens the case was remanded by the Southern District of Texas back to state court for adjudication. Pina-Martinez v. Saldana, 2018 WL 4140683.

A trucker was granted partial summary judgment in a suit in the Northern District of New York arising from a truck accident. The Court held that plaintiff’s miscarriage after the accident was not caused by the accident and that her other child suffered no serious injury or zone of injury in the accident. As there was a question of whether plaintiff suffered PTSD as a result of the accident the court allowed that issue to proceed. Fang v. Dofar, 2018 WL 4054096.

How do you apply the limits afforded by a guaranty fund? The Supreme Court of South Carolina concluded that when the defendant trucking company’s insurer went insolvent the $300,000 guarantee cap would apply to the full amount of the damages and that any settlement amount by other insurers is offset against the full amount and not the $300,000 cap. Buchanan v. South Carolina Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Assoc. 2018 WL 4212101

When a plaintiff was injured by a truck which was moving in reverse the jury determined that it was the spotters who bore the brunt of the loss. The Court of Appeals in Texas held that the consignee, who was supposed to be controlling the actions of the driver and/or warning him of the presence of other parties, bore 64% of the liability for the truck accident. Primoris Energy Services v. Myers, 2018 WL 4136186

The Court of Appeals held that a lessor of a truck bore no liability for the actions of the driver and the motor carrier. The Court concluded that retaining the right to inspect the vehicle during the term of the lease did not create a duty to the driver unless there was evidence that the lessor knew of the dangerous condition. Hernandez v. Grando’s LLC, 2018 WL 4233790

Failure to comply with Pennsylvania’s rules regarding notice of cancellation was fatal for an insurer seeking to deny coverage for a truck accident. The Middle District in Pennsylvania refused to reconsider its decision that the failure to specifically note the reason for cancellation on the notice precluded the cancellation, even when the evidence showed that the motor carrier was aware of the reason. Sunday v. Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company, 2018 WL 4509216

The failure to properly provide a privilege log in responding to discovery was determined to be a waiver of privilege. The insurer in a coverage case was required by the Eastern District of North Carolina to produce a complete copy of its claim file in the coverage suit. Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co. v. Arbormax Tree Service, LLC, 2018 WL 4431320

The court granted summary judgment to a motor carrier and its driver for the plaintiff’s claim of wantonness. The Northern District of Alabama held that there would be no claim for wantonness when the driver simply misjudged his operations and had an accident. Edmonds v. Courier Service, Inc. 2018 WL 4409300

Accepting liability under the theory of respondeat superior allowed a motor carrier to seek dismissal for a claim of negligent entrustment of the vehicle. The District Court in Maryland further held that plaintiff had set forth no facts to support such a claim, even if it existed. Brown v. Kahl,2018 WL 4108030

The effort of a pilot car company to seek a defense and indemnity under the motor carrier’s policy failed in the Western District of Washington. The court held that there was no conceivable allegation under the complaint which would support that the pilot car was an additional insured under the motor carrier’s policy. DeTray v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, 2018 WL 4184334

Thanks for joining us,

Jean & Chad

Volume 21, Edition 8

Dear Subscribers

How did we get to Labor Day already?  It seems like summer was just starting.  Hope you have a great holiday.

We are very excited to introduce you to our newest team member, Chad Krueger, who is joining us as our Senior Vice President.  Chad has been a heavy user of CAB over the years and brings a unique loss control perspective to our team.  Starting with his years as the Safety Director at a large trucking company, continuing with his years in Loss Control on the agency side and then a Senior Loss Control  representative at an insurer he knows what it takes to evaluate, correct and monitor transportation risk to minimize loss and to truly understand the operations of a carrier.  I am pretty sure he is going to get us in line too!  He will be reaching out to all of you in the coming months and is bringing many new ideas on the services provided to you by CAB.  Chad will be attending the Motor Carrier Insurance Education Foundation with me in October and I look forward to introducing him all around.  I have not told him yet but he will be taking on some of the role in writing the Bits N Pieces so that you get some other insights.  (guess he knows now)

This month we report;

Hours of Service.  I am fairly certain that I have been reporting on the Hours of Service for 20 some odd years with no end in sight. The FMCSA is now considering more changes.  They recently filed a pre-rule which is a form of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  It will seek input from the industry about possible changes to the current rules. You can view the proposed rulemaking here.

Younger Drivers.  A bill had been introduced which will allow 18- to 20-year-olds to drive a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce.  With the driver turnover rate for large fleets reported at 94 percent in the first quarter of 2018 this may be welcome by the industry.  This would rule, if passed, would mirror the move of some states which allow young drivers to operate commercial motor vehicles.

The DRIVE-Safe Act would require drivers under the age of 21 to complete a probationary period of 120 hours followed by 280 hours of on-duty time. Trucks used in the apprenticeship program would require a collision mitigation system, forward-facing video, and a speed limiter that is set at no faster than 65 mph. The apprentice driver would also have to be accompanied in the cab by an experienced driver who is at least 21 years old, has held a CDL for at least two years and hasn’t had a preventable accident or moving violation in the past year.



UCR Fees.  Fees are on their way down again. Carriers with one and two trucks will pay $63; $187 for three to five trucks; $372 for between six and 20 trucks; $1,299 for carriers with 21-100 trucks; $6,190 for 101-1,000-truck carriers; and $60,441 for fleets with more than 1,000 trucks. Regulations require UCR fee adjustments when annual revenues exceed the maximum allowed ($112 million). Here is the chart.

CSA.  The FMCSA has filed its report with Congress regarding the proposed changes to CSA. The changes include replacing the existing CSA Safety Measurement System with a new scoring system, working to improve the quality of data used to score carriers, making it easier for carriers to understand and calculate their safety scores and evaluating adding an absolute scoring system.  A copy of the report can be reviewed here.

Cargo Theft.  Sensiguard has released its report on cargo theft for the second quarter.  They reported 144 cargo theft incidents during the quarter with an average loss value of $178,273 – an 8 percent increase in volume and 28 percent increase in value when compared to the second quarter of 2017.

California, Florida and Texas were home to the most cargo thefts in 2018’s second quarter with building and industrial materials leading the way, followed by electronics. Most of the thefts were truck loads.




There is always an increased exposure when there are multiple entities owned by the same people.  The Southern District of Ohio addressed the interrelationship between multiple motor carriers and its principles, concluding that the principles of the two companies had no individual liability for a truck accident.  The Court also concluded that a single enterprise argument would fail, and that violations of regulations did not justify a cause of action for negligence per se.  It should be noted that the Court did allow for a punitive damages claim to proceed as there was evidence that the motor carrier knew the driver was unfit.  More importantly the court held that a punitive damages claim could stand against the shipper because the public records on the violations should have made them aware of the problems.  The shipper was not permitted to rely on the fact that the motor carrier was licensed. Parker v. Miller, 2018 U.S. Dist LEXIS 132577

A verdict of bad faith against an insurer was upheld in the Court of Appeals in Washington.  The insurer of a truck driver settled a large claim for policy limits on a multivehicle accident. The court held that the insurer acted in its best interest and not the interest of the insured who would have wanted to preserve his right to a defense.  The insurer was obligated to indemnify the insured for its costs in settling a claim above the policy limits, as well as additional damages for his own damages as well as attorney’s fees.  Singh v Zurich American Insurance Co., 2018 WL 3844372

If your policy requires payment of the first premium installment before attachment the insurer is not required to give notice of cancellation The Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to one truck insurer.  However, a second insurer, who denied coverage based upon a material misrepresentation regarding the number of vehicles being operated by the insured was denied summary judgment when there were questions of fact as to whether the motor carrier has gotten the report of an inspection involving the additional vehicle removed from its SMS inspections before the cancellation.  Sunday v. Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Ins. Co. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127329

A motor carrier operating equipment under lease from another company was entitled to pursue a claim against a second trucker for the value of the property destroyed in a truck accident.  The 6th Circuit concluded that as the lessee had a contractual obligation to pay the lessor for the damages it was entitled to pursue equitable subrogation. Central Transport v. Balram Trucking 2018 WL 3995658

An insurer in Delaware was unsuccessful in having its declaratory judgment action considered in the Superior Court in Delaware.  The court held that a  first-filed personal injury action was a prior pending action for forum non conveniens purposes.  In view of the overlapping factual issues between the two actions, the risk of inconsistent judgments, and the fact Delaware law was not implicated in the loss the Court concluded that the prior filed New Jersey action should precede first. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Bowman, 2018 WL 3853875

A driver estate’s action against a consignee for injuries suffered when cargo fell on him during unloading was not permitted to proceed in Texas when the loss occurred in Oregon. The Court of Appeals in Texas held that the consignee did not have minimum contacts with the state.  The fact that it purchased goods from a Texas company would not give rise to jurisdiction. Wilco v. Carter, 2018 3625434

One trucking company was successful in having its summary judgment upheld in an action seeking damages for liability arising from a truck accident.  When the facts supported that the plaintiff improperly entered the motor carrier’s lane of traffic the motor carrier was held not liable for a fatal collision. The Court of Appeals in Michigan held that the motor carrier could not reasonably foresee such actions.  Pasho v. McCowan, 2018 Mich. App. LEXIS 2885

The Superior Court in Connecticut denied most of a motor carrier’s motion to dismiss claims for negligent supervision, training, hiring and retention. The court held that the motor carrier’s constructive knowledge of the driving propensities of the driver, by failing to check his history before allowing him to drive supported claims for negligent hiring, training and supervision but not retention.  Beardsley v. Jamark Constr., LLC 2018 Conn. Super LEXIS 1498

When a personal injury action was brought in the District Court in New Jersey for a truck accident which happened in Florida the court denied the motor carrier’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction but did transfer the case to Florida. The fact that the national carrier had a presence in the state of New Jersey was insufficient to support jurisdiction. Griggs v. Swift Transportation 2018 WL 3966304

The Appellate Division in New Jersey reversed the dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint for failure to appear at depositions.  The trucking company defendants had been granted dismissal by the trial court.  The Appellate Division determined that the sanction was excessive and remanded the case back for reinstatement of the complaint.  Ortiz v. Benkius, 2018 WL 3625162

A split decision on a motion to strike causes of action in a complaint was rendered in the District Court of Minnesota.  The court granted a motion to dismiss claims for negligent hiring and retention when there was no evidence of an intentional act by the motor carrier. However the claims for negligent selection, supervision, and entrustment were permitted to remain because genuine disputes of material fact remain with respect to those claims. Soto v. Shealey,  2018 WL 3677920

The Court of Appeals in Indiana reversed a lower court decision and granted summary judgment to an insurance agent who was sued for allegedly providing improper information to a motor carrier’s insurer and to the DOT regarding an entities prior connection to a predecessor trucking company. The court held that the agent owed no duty to the injured plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs failed to allege a tort for conspiring to aid and abet a motor carrier to become a chameleon carrier.  ONB ins. Grp. v. Estate of Megal, 2018 Ind. App LEXIS 260

Try as they might to get a case over quickly a rail carrier was not entitled for summary judgment on the claim for more than 5 million in damages suffered when a truck got stuck on the rail line.  The Western District in Louisiana held that there were just too many questions remaining to be resolved. Union Pac. RR Co. v. Taylor Truck Line, Inc. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140159

We generally do not report on decisions on discovery disputes between parties because they are so fact specific but sometimes the decisions are worth reviewing for thoughts on discovery in other cases for claims and defense counsel.  The Western District of Kentucky addressed a motor carrier’s obligations to produce many of its business records, including crash prevention information, insurance limits, vehicle maintenance and driver information.  Worth a review to see what is out there.  Merriweather v. UPS, 2018 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 124383

A personal injury action against a truck broker was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The court held that the connection between the broker and the motor carrier did not give rise to sufficient facts to support jurisdiction in the state.  Pineda v. Chromiak, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125803.

Great Dane was granted summary judgment against the plaintiff in an action seeking damages for design defect which plaintiff alleged contributed to a side-underride accident. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that a alternative design, a “telescoping side guard” would have prevented the accident.  Wilden v. Laury Transp., 2018 U.S. App. 23776.

The Supreme Court in Alaska upheld a defense verdict in a subrogation action by the plaintiff seeking recovery for 3.5 million in oil spill mediation costs arising from two truck accident.  The Court affirmed the finding that the second carrier was not negligent in causing the accident. HDI-Gerling America Ins. Co. v. Carlile Transportation Systems 2018 WL 4040363

In an evidence case the Western District of Kentucky held that a motor carrier could introduce an animation prepared by an accident reconstruction company, and testimony regarding the sleep habits of the plaintiff and human factors which contributed to an accident.  The defense was seeking to use this evidence to show that the plaintiff was inattentive and bore some culpability for the fatal accident.  White v. Transp. Servs., 2018 U.S. Dist LEXIS 142667

The Southern District of Mississippi granted a motor carrier’s motion in limine precluding plaintiff’s efforts to introduce evidence that the drivers were not proficient in the English language.  The Court also held that the plaintiff could not submit evidence of safety rules which were not relevant to the loss.  McCon v. Perez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140449

A truck driver was precluded from recovering from a shipper in the District Court in Maryland.  As the driver was contributorily negligent in failing to adhere to safety rules he was not entitled to seek damages from others.  Childress v. Goodloe Marine, Inc. 2018 U.S. Dist LEXIS 135050.

A driver injured when putting chains on his tractor was entitled to UM/UIM coverage from the trucking company’s policy.  The District Court in Oregon held that it was related to the auto but rejected plaintiff’s argument that the limits should be hired because the insurer failed to properly noted limits on the coverage endorsement. Nikolaychuk v. Nat’s Cas. Co., 2018  U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138792

A trucking company was granted summary judgment on claims of wantonness, negligent entrustment, training retention and supervision when a plaintiff claimed he was struck by cargo when a pedestrian on the side of the road.  While the Northern District of Alabama allowed the negligence action to proceed as there were questions of fact, the plaintiff failed to establish any basis for the additional causes of action, Pickens v. Guy’s Logging Co., 2018 U.S. Dist LEXIS 131925

A Canadian insurer was found to be subject to jurisdiction in the Southern District of Indiana in a declaratory judgment action on primary/excess issues arising from a truck accident. The court held that there were sufficient contacts with the state to obligate the insurer to defend the coverage case in the state of the accident.  Leech v. Nat’l Interstate Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 132445

In the Northern District of Alabama the court also granted summary judgment to a motor carrier on claims of negligent entrustment and negligent hiring and retention. However the court did find that there were questions of fact regarding the defendants’ alleged negligence and wantonness in allowing the driver to operate a vehicle where the bumper was strapped onto the truck.  It fell off causing the injury.  Simpson v. Key Line Solutions, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 132185

The trial court did not err in giving a sudden emergency jury instruction in the trial of an accident stemming from a collision between two trucks.  The Court of Appeals in Texas held that there was evidence that the second truck turned suddenly causing the first truck to either strike the second truck or hit other stopped cars.  Dodson v. Munoz, 2018 Tex App. LEXIS 6192.

The statutory definition of employee under the federal rules could not be used by an insurer to deny coverage when an owner operator under lease to the insured was injured by a second owner operator in a truck accident. The Northern District of Illinois held that the definition of employee in the policy was the only thing to consider and liability for actions of owner operators would not be excluded,  Nat’l Cont’l Ins. Co. v. Singh, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136941

The Court of Appeals in California held that a trucker’s insurer was not obligated to defend and indemnify a shipper who was sued for injuries suffered to a driver when he was retarping a load of hay. In a dispute between two insurers the court held that the driver was not in the process of loading or unloading the truck at the time of the accident when he fell of a hay squeeze while retarping the load.  Monteray Ins. Co. v. Peerless Indem. Ins. Co., 2018 Cal App. Unpub LEXIS 5124

Worker’s Compensation

A truck driver was unsuccessful in efforts to recover from the state for injuries suffered as a result of alleged negligent design of a roadway. The Court of Appeals in Oregon held that the state was immune from suit when the driver was entitled to worker’s compensation from his employer.  Sitton v. State, 2018 Ore. App. LEXIS 920

When a driver was injured showering at a truck stop he was not entitled to worker’s compensation benefits.  The Superior Court in New Jersey held that the act of showering was not in furtherance of his employment.  Kamenetti v. Sangillo & Sons, LLC., 2018 N.J. Super Unpub. LEXIS 1883


A broker’s claim for breach of contract against a motor carrier for failure to pay for a cargo loss was upheld in the Northern District in Illinois.  The Court held that it was not preempted by the Carmack Amendment.  The court also noted that reasonable estimates were sufficient to support damages as long as there was a factual basis for the estimates.  Transco Lines v. Extra Logistics, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141478

It has been a long time since we have seen a case on the commercial zone exemption.  The Northern District of Indiana denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss a cause of action claiming Carmack preemption. The court denied the motion, concluding that the transport from Chicago, Il to an adjacent suburb in Indiana was preempted because the transport was within the Chicago commercial zone and therefore not subject to Carmack.  Apex Compounding Pharm, LLC v. Best Transp. Services, 2018 U.S.  Dist. LEXIS 140595

The 6th Circuit held that a cargo insurer was obligated to indemnify a motor carrier for any liability that it had under a contract, even if the matter did not proceed to judgment.  The motor carrier had paid the customer for the value of cargo which was delivered without a seal.  The court held that the insurer waived the right to argue the “no payment” clause.   Dark Horse Express, LLC v. Lancer Insurance Co. 2018 WL 3738638

Have a marvelous Labor Day! See you next month.

© 2018 Central Analysis Bureau