"The Impact of Sperl" posted on this blog in March 2012 remains one of the most viewed posts. Undoubtedly the impact of the Sperl decision of over $23 million against of the largest, if not THE largest, trucking broker remains a hot topic.
As recently reported by excellent panelists at the Trucking Industry Defense Association Annual Conference in San Antonio, Texas, aggressive plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the minimal cargo insurance ($750,000) mandated by the FMCSA, seeking additional "deep pockets" under innovative theories of liability. Brokers ordinarily are not liable for the negligent conduct of the independent contractors they hire, i.e. motor carriers.*
As recently reported by excellent panelists at the Trucking Industry Defense Association Annual Conference in San Antonio, Texas, aggressive plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the minimal cargo insurance ($750,000) mandated by the FMCSA, seeking additional "deep pockets" under innovative theories of liability. Brokers ordinarily are not liable for the negligent conduct of the independent contractors they hire, i.e. motor carriers.*
In recent years aggressive plaintiffs have concocted new theories upon which to fix liability on transportation brokers for casualty losses:
– Motor carrier violations of the FMSCRs
– Common law negligence
– Respondeat superior
– Vicarious liability–Negligent hiring/retention
– Negligent entrustment
– Joint venture /alter ego
Some Signs of Improvement
