Source: http://www.thehamiltonfirm.com/en/category/trucking/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:58:12+00:00

Document:
Effective immediately, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has said it will allow drivers to use personal conveyance status to get to the nearest safe parking spot/rest location after hours are exhausted by a shipper/receiver, or off-duty periods are interrupted by law enforcement. Will this expansion of the “personal conveyance” exemption be abused by some drivers? Probably, and so the logs and actual movements of tractor trailers should be carefully examined in any case where time and distance traveled before a wreck looks suspicious.
The new interpretation of when it is legal to use a truck for personal conveyance allows use of personal conveyance whether the truck is loaded or not.
Personal conveyance is also newly specifically allowed in other similar circumstances, the agency noted — when a safety official (such as a law enforcement officer) requires a driver to move during an off-duty period. Such a use should be “no farther than the nearest reasonable and safe area to complete the rest period,” according the Federal Register publication.
Travel to home after working “offsite,” as long as the driver’s home is not in the direction of the current or next dispatch, is also explicitly allowed as personal conveyance by the new guidance.
Truckers came by the thousands from all across the country, pulling into into the Petro Stopping Center, a 24-hour truck stop off Interstate 285 in Atlanta, where they could find coffee and CB radios, tires and a tattoo shop, and a chiropractor, known as “Dr. Tony.” Dr. Anthony Lefteris got federally certified in 2014 to conduct the DOT medical exams that truckers must pass to get their commercial driver’s license (CDL). Lefteris is alleged to have completed nearly as many exams in an hour as a typical federally certified examiner did in a month. In less than three years, he issued more than 6,500 certificates of good health to truckers from 43 states! But they appear to have been falsified.
An anonymous tip from a trucker led to Lefteris’s arrest in December and he now faces criminal charges of falsifying documents filed with a federal agency. All his bogus DOT cards have been revoked by FMCSA, and this could have repercussions throughout the industry, as those drivers may have been operating commercial vehicles illegally.
A motor carrier engaged in interstate commerce and subject to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) must have minimum liability coverage of $750,000. The insurer must provide a MCS-90 endorsement to the liability policy, and that endorsement is supposed to be filed with FMCSA.
In Grange Indemnity Insurance Company v. Burns, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 365, decided June 23rd, the Georgia Court of Appeals held that an MCS-90 endorsement attached to a commercial auto policy did not provide additional insurance coverage to the trucking company even though it was registered as an interstate motor carrier.
The trucking company, J. B. Trucking, was insured under a Grange Indemnity commercial auto insurance policy with limits of only $350,000.00. But the policy also contained an MCS-90 endorsement (with minimum coverage of $750,000.00 for nonhazardous materials). The plaintiff was injured as result of their driver’s negligence, resulting in a jury verdict of $3.3 million, but the Court of Appeals limited the plaintiff’s recovery from the insurance proceeds to $350,000, holding that the crash occurred during an intrastate delivery (involving nonhazardous materials), as opposed to during an interstate trip, and therefore the MCS-90 endorsement did not provide coverage.
The plaintiff argued unsuccessfully that once an MCS-90 endorsement is issued to a registered interstate carrier, the endorsement should apply regardless of whether a “specific trip” is intrastate or interstate. Burns argued that a Georgia citizen injured by an interstate motor carrier conducting intrastate commerce of nonhazardous materials at the time of an accident should be given the same amount of protection as a citizen injured by the same truck, owned by the same carrier, and covered by the same insurance policy, but whose cargo may be destined for another state. Burns argued that the MCS-90 endorsement should apply to all J. B. Trucking trips because J. B. Trucking was registered as an “interstate” carrier and J. B. Trucking had on many other occasions been involved in interstate trips.
There is a split of authority on this issue nationwide, as there are other courts which have held that the MCS-90 endorsement will apply to interstate and intrastate accidents (involving nonhazardous materials). Those courts rejected the “trip specific” approach, which focuses on the character of the shipment itself as interstate or intrastate, and instead based their decision on the fact that the FMCSA had jurisdiction over all of the interstate carrier’s trips, regardless of destination. Some courts have also held that based on public policy considerations, the MSC-90 should apply because the endorsement was designed to protect members of the general public injured by interstate carriers, regardless of the carrier’s destination on a particular trip. The public policy underlying the MCS-90 is to provide a safety net to members of the public injured as a result of negligent operation of tractor trailers used in interstate commerce. Its primary purpose is to assure injured members of the public are able to obtain judgments from negligent authorized interstate carriers. See Reliance National Insurance Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12901 (S.D.N.Y.) and Heron v. Transportation Casualty Insurance Co., 274 Va. 534 (Va. 2007).
The inside story of how the trucking industry and politicians have conspired to make our highways less safe.
“In 2013, the most recent year for which finalized statistics are available, 3,541 wrecks killed 3,964 people — an increase of 17.3 percent in just four years. In 2014, the number of deaths resulting from truck accidents was down slightly, but the total number of crashes and injuries increased.
Safety regulations and requirements should be strengthened, not watered down, but that is exactly what trucking industry and their lobbists are trying to do. We don’t need larger and heavier trucks on our roads. And, truck drivers are falling asleep at the wheel now; they need to take more breaks and time off. With the potential for death and destruction these behemoths present, one would think that the federal government would require them to carry at least $5,000,000 in liability coverage. But no, when FMCSA begin consideration for increasing the current minimum of $750,000, another measure the industry pushed last year short-circuited federal regulators’ efforts to even evaluate raising insurance requirements for trucking companies. The current $750,000 minimum has been unchanged since the 1980’s. But it is obvious to all that $750,000 doesn’t even begin to cover the costs of a serious semi wreck. All the large trucking companies carry multiple layers of coverage, often far in excess of $5,000,000. It is the small operators that present the clear and present danger, carrying only the minimum limits required by FMCSA. And those small operators are often running poorly maintained equipment with marginally qualified drivers.
How can the public protect itself? Speak up and get Congress to pay attention. The relationship between the industry and Congress, including members of both parties, is far to cozy. More on this topic to come, including truck drivers who fall asleep at the wheel.
Peterbilt is recalling more than 2,000 trucks because they reach speeds greater than their tires are built to handle. The move by Peterbilt in the U.S. and Canada raises questions about the safety of thousands of other big trucks on U.S. roads. Peterbilt is recalling certain tractors from 2009 to 2016 because they can exceed 75 miles per hour, even though the maximum speed their Michelin tires can handle is 65 mph. Such trucks mainly haul automobiles. The tires on the front or steer axle can fail and cause a crash.
Media outlets are reporting that dealers will reprogram computers so the trucks can’t go over 65.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is encouraging other truck makers with similar risks to fix the problem. But at this time, the agency is not seeking more recalls. NHTSA began investigating Michelin’s 22.5” diameter XZA tires in 2014, and one of the findings was travelling at speeds higher that the tire can handle can lead to tire failure.
In any crash involving a Peterbilt truck manufactured since 2009, such tire failure should be considered as a possible cause, keeping in mind that the recommended maximum speed for certain Michelin tires is only 65 mph. If the driver was exceeding 65, he was violating that safety recommendation, even if 65 was within the posted speed limit.
Forward Collision Avoidance Systems: This technology, which works by alerting the driver and taking over the brakes and engine of the tractor-trailer when an imminent collision is anticipated, is already fully developed and comes as a standard feature on many new automobiles. It is estimated that it would cost less than $500 per vehicle to retrofit current tractor-trailers to meet this standard. On average, according to NHTSA, two to three rear-end collisions involving tractor-trailers occur somewhere in the U.S. about every hour.
Speed Governors: Every tractor-trailer manufactured since 1992 comes from the factory with a speed governor installed as standard equipment, which works by setting a predetermined speed limit that the vehicle cannot exceed. Unfortunately, many truck companies and individual truckers opt not to use them. However, the companies that require the use of speed governors in their trucks report that, in addition to being safer on the roads, their tractor-trailers also are more profitable due to fuel savings, last longer because of the reduced wear-and-tear, and have lower liability costs as a result of the reduction in the number and severity of crashes.
It is estimated by the U.S. Department of Transportation that there are nearly 100,000 injuries and 4,000 deaths nationwide each year as a result of tractor-trailer crashes. It is time to do something and reduce the carnage on our roadways.
Although we generally confine our blog posts to developments in the law from Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama (as well as law firm announcements), this California case is worthy of comment.
According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) the agency is exploring the potential to raise the $750,000 insurance minimum requirement for commercial motor vehicles. In a report to Congress in April 2014, the FMCSA says current minimums are inadequate to meet the costs of some crashes because “inflation has greatly increased medical claims costs and related expenses.” The FMCSA has formed a team to further evaluate required levels of financial responsibility.
The report was mandated by MAP-21 legislation and includes findings from a study that weighed the benefits of increasing insurance minimums, including improved compensation for crash victims and reductions in commercial vehicle crashes, against costs imposed on commercial motor vehicle operators and the insurance industry.
The $750,000 minimum has been in place since 1985, and the agency says if it had kept up with the core consumer price index, the minimum would be $1.62 million, and if it kept up with the medical consumer price index, which measures the annual increase in medical costs, the number would be $3.18 million in liability insurance.
As expected, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) responded to the FMCSA’s report saying that any increase in insurance rates would devastate small businesses that comprise over 90 percent of the trucking industry.
The Hamilton Firm urges a substantial increase in the minimum limits given the devastating effects of a collision between a passenger car or small truck and a tractor trailer or other large commercial vehicle. The likely result of such collisions is catastrophic injury or death. The current minimum limit of $750,000 is grossly inadequate.
In Trucking Cases, Can a Claim for Negligent Entrustment,Hiring or Retention Survive Summary Judgment if the Carrier Admits Responsibility for Its Driver’s Acts and Omissions?
“”. . . when an employer admits the applicability of respondeat superior, it is entitled to summary judgment on claims for negligent entrustment, hiring, and retention. The rationale for this is that, since the employer would be liable for the employee’s negligence under respondeat superior, allowing claims for negligent entrustment, hiring, and retention would not entitle the plaintiff to a greater recovery, but would merely serve to prejudice the employer. An exception exists for this general rule, however, where a plaintiff has a valid claim for punitive damages against the employer based on its independent negligence in hiring and retaining the employee or entrusting a vehicle to such employee. In such case, it cannot be said that the negligence claims against the employer are merely duplicative of the respondeat superior claim. Underthese circumstances, the employer is not entitled to summary judgment on the negligent entrustment, hiring, and retention claims”.
So, in Georgia the answer appears to be No, unless punitive damages are alleged and can survive a motion for summary judgment.
Removal of trucking case to Federal Court allowed more than one year after filing where Plaintiff was found to have acted in bad faith.
In an interesting trucking case, Cameron v. Teeberry Logistics, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (2013 N.D. Ga.) the district court permitted removal of a case filed in Troup State Court over a year after it was filed alleging that the amount in controversy was less than $50,000. Through discovery it was revealed that the plaintiff was claiming medical expenses of $62,432.45, and that her doctor was recommending back surgery. Subsequently the medical total expense increased to $91,413.75. The case was set for mediation, and prior to mediation plaintiff’s counsel demanded $575,000 to settle. The demand for $575,000 was made one year and four days after the lawsuit was filed. Mediation failed and the defendants removed the case to federal court, more than one year after it was commenced. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that the removal came too late under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). Under that statute, the defendant must file notice of removal within 30 days of when he first ascertains that the action is removable. To remove a case that was not initially removable but later becomes removal, the defendant has to file the notice no “more than 1 year after commencement of the action, unless the district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c).
Nice try by plaintiff’s counsel, but it goest to show that you can’t have your cake and eat it too!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1446
 § 1446