Trucking and transportation is one of the oldest practice areas at Marshall Dennehey. Our group handles cases in the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Florida, New York and Connecticut. The Trucking & Transportation Practice represents clients and their carriers in complex tort and coverage litigation involving all types of common and private carriers. The members of this group include shareholders and associates who have handled cases for large common carrier transportation fleets engaged in interstate trucking, railroads, waste hauling, taxicab, shuttle and bus operators, rental vehicle fleets and ambulance services. These attorneys have represented insurers and self-insureds in personal injury, cargo, environmental, hazardous materials, indemnification and insurance coverage issues, and are keenly aware of the impact of the sophisticated issues and interrelationships of the parties.
Staged Trucking Accidents: A Growing Threat
Staged accidents have become a serious concern in the trucking and transportation industry. These deliberate collisions are orchestrated as part of elaborate insurance scams, with individuals seeking substantial payouts through false claims. These schemes can result in significant financial losses and legal challenges for trucking companies.
Our skilled defense attorneys help organizations combat staged accident fraud by providing early fraud detection guidance, preserving key evidence, and developing strategies to expose fraudulent claims. We work with state and federal authorities as well as the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) to ensure that claims are appropriately referred to the proper authorities for potential restitution. In certain circumstances, we offer pre-suit solutions to stop litigation before it begins—saving legal and indemnity spend. When litigation arises, we provide a vigorous defense to protect our clients' financial stability and reputation. Our attorneys have several decades of experience in this space to effectively and comprehensively combat this growing threat.
From the inception of our firm, we have handled complex litigation involving the shipping of goods over waterways, highways and rail. With today's emphasis on the proper handling of hazardous materials during shipment, many of our transportation attorneys have also cross-trained in environmental and toxic tort matters. In addition, we have the full support of our appellate and toxic tort environmental sections to draw upon in the handling of any transportation matter.
In conjunction with the firm's Insurance Coverage/Bad Faith and Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial practice groups, we represent insurance carriers in coverage matters that arise from underlying transportation cases.
The members of the Trucking & Transportation Practice are active participants in a number of the major transportation law organizations including the Trucking Industry Defense Association, ATA Litigation Center, ABA Transportation Megaconferences, RIMS, Defense Research Institute and Association of Transportation Practitioners.
We are aware of today's focus on securing sound legal services at reasonable fee levels. Our firm has grown because of our sensitivity in this area. This is especially true in the transportation industry where many of our clients have large, self-insured retentions that necessitate close control of legal costs and expenses. Our trial lawyers take a practical, results-oriented approach to their cases. The firm maintains competitive rates through task-appropriate delegation which is consistent with the overall close supervision and client responsiveness required in transportation matters. We are willing to discuss, develop and implement alternative billing formats wherever possible.
Results
Defense Verdict Returned After Short Jury Deliberation in High-Exposure New Jersey Trucking Case
Christopher Block and Paul Lanza (both of Roseland) successfully obtained a defense verdict in a trucking accident in New Jersey. The plaintiff claimed that our client merged into her lane at the George Washington Bridge toll plaza causing her to sustain neck and back injuries for which she underwent two spinal surgeries. Our client testified that both of their lanes ended and, because they were required to merge, he had the right-of-way since the front of his truck was ahead of the front of her vehicle. Our accident reconstruction expert confirmed that our driver had the right-of-way and opined that plaintiff was the sole cause of the accident. We also disputed the causation of plaintiff’s alleged injuries based on the very limited property damage to her vehicle, as well as the fact that she had prior, similar injuries. After a little more than an hour of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding that our driver was not negligent. The trial team was assisted by associate attorney Haleigh Catalano and paralegal Kelly Dermody who provided critical support with motions in limine and trial management.
Trial Court’s Denial of Motions Reversed Before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
We convinced the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to reverse the trial court’s denial of motions for post-trial relief and to direct entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of our client. The plaintiff was injured while standing unsupported on a moving bus. He lost his balance when the bus accelerated away from a bus stop, grabbed an overhead bar to keep from falling, and injured his arm. The video showed that only the plaintiff lost his balance when the bus started moving. At trial, our client moved for nonsuit and directed verdict, arguing the evidence was insufficient to overcome the jerk-and-jolt doctrine that applies when a passenger is injured on a moving bus. To merit the submission of a jerk-and-jolt case to the jury, a plaintiff must establish a sudden stop or jerk so unusual and extraordinary as to be beyond a passenger’s reasonable anticipation. The Honorable James Crumlish denied the motions for nonsuit and directed verdict and also denied our client’s motions for post-trial relief. Judge Crumlish determined the video evidence presented a jury question under the jerk-and-jolt doctrine and mirrored the plaintiff’s counsel’s characterization of the video evidence in doing so. The Commonwealth Court disagreed. After independently reviewing the video evidence, the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court and granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to our client. In doing so, it pointed out that various observations of the trial court “were not supported by the video or testimony.”
Thought Leadership
U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability
May 19, 2026
Freight brokers are intermediaries. They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods. Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents. At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA . Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption. On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA. That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies.
Case Law Alerts
Court Limits UIM Recovery to Named Insured After Plaintiff Seeks Additional Household Coverage
April 1, 2026
The plaintiff, a resident of Erie County, New York, was legally traversing a four-way stop intersection when his vehicle was struck by a tortfeasor after she ran a stop sign. As a result, the plaintiff sustained extensive and severe injuries requiring medical care for the rest of his life. This medical care was valued far in excess of the tortfeasor’s auto insurance policy, as well as the plaintiff’s own underinsured motorist coverage. After settling with the tortfeasor for her New York State minimum policy limits, the plaintiff attempted to collect underinsured motorist coverage under both his own auto policy and his parents’ auto policy, as he still lived in their home, despite that the vehicle involved in the collision was being insured only under his own policy. The defendant insurance company argued that the plaintiff was only entitled to the remining funds under his own underinsured motorist policy. Upon the refusal to pay out funds pursuant to the parents’ underinsured motorist policy, the plaintiff brought an insurance bad faith claim against the defendants. After extensive discovery, the plaintiff dropped his bad faith claim and accepted the funds remaining under his own underinsured motorist policy, thereby avoiding a trial and additional exposure of more than triple the ultimate settlement amount.
