Lawsuit

Navistar Engine Lawsuit Approved at $135M

March 23, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

CHICAGO – A $135 million settlement will now be paid to resolve claims that Navistar sold defective truck engines knowingly.

A federal judge in the city granted final approval of the settlement last month between Navistar Inc. and a court-certified class of around 45,000 plaintiffs.

This settlement benefits truck drivers, particularly, who leased or purchased a MaxxForce 11- or 13-liter engine-equipped vehicle from between the 2011 and 2014 model years. These engines were certified to meet EPA 2010 emissions standards without selective catalytic reduction technology.

This settlement has been one of the the most prominent legal battles for Navistar, a company that builds international trucks. The issue originates from the leasing and sale of over 66,000 trucks with engines equipped with defective exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems–which are meant to control nitrogen oxide emissions.

Allegedly, the defect causes engines to heat up much more than similarly-made engines, which leads them to break down more easily.

The plaintiffs claimed that they would not have purchased the vehicles, or would have paid much less, should they have known about the potential defects ahead of time. Because of this, Class Members, along with the plaintiffs, argued that they had sustained financial injury.

When the settlement was made in May of 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Joan Gottschall rules that it was “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”

Lyndi MacMillan, director of business communications for Navistar, said the company looks at the settlement as a way to move forward. “Navistar is pleased with the court’s decision to approve the proposed $135 million class action settlement,” she said. “The settlement is a major step in helping us move past the MaxxForce 1-liter and 13-liter EGR engines issues in the U.S.”

According to the settlement, class members are able to select a “no questions asked” payment of up to $2,500 per truck, a $10,000 rebate off of the price of a new truck, or out-of-pocket costs per truck related to the EGR setup of up to $15,000 total. The agreement has set aside $85 million in cash with another $50 million for the rebate program.

Class Members must file a valid claim by May 11, 2020 to benefit from the settlement.

Who is eligible?

Any consumer who purchased or leased a 2011 to 2014 model year vehicle which used a MaxxForce 11- or 13-liter engine with specific certification meeting EPA 2010 emission standards without selective catalytic reduction tech can benefit from the settlement.

To see if their vehicle qualifies, consumers can check their VIN numbers.

What is the award?

Consumers can receive up to $2,500 in cash or up to $10,000 in rebates per affected vehicle. Additionally, Class Members will get a certain monetary amount for each month that they owned or leased the affected vehicle.

Limitations for the cash option:

-Model year 2011: $26.59 per month

-Model year 2012: $29.07 per month

-Model year 2013: $33.33 per month

-Model year 2014: $39.06 per month

Limitations for the rebate option:

-Model year 2011: $106.36 per month

-Model year 2012: $116.28 per month

-Model year 2013: $133.32 per month

-Model year 2014: $156.24 per month

There is an additional third option from which Class Members may be able to benefit if they choose to forego cash or rebates. The “Prove-Up” option allows Class Members to collect up to $15,000 in covered costs per vehicle owned or leased. These costs include repairing or replacing primary components, or repairing or replacing a secondary component that takes place within 30 days of the first.

The primary components include: the EGR Cooler and the EGR Valve. Secondary components include: the Lambda Sensor, Oxygen Sensor, Oil Centrifuge, Valve/Seat (Intake), Valve/Seat (exhaust). Valve Bridge, Cylinder Head (when accompanied by a Valve/Seat (Intake) and Valve Bridge repair), Turbochargers, Total Engine Replacement or Rebuild (with proven Turbochargers failure), Diesel Particulate Filter, and DOC/Pre-DOC.

In their court filings, the plaintiffs claimed that heavy-duty diesel engine manufacturers have worked to lower NOx emissions with EGR for years, and that all manufacturers, apart from Navistar, adopted selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to remove NOx from the exhaust after federal emission standards were lowered in 2010.

According to the court documents, Navistar tried to use EGR alone to comply with the rules, but MaxxForce engines prevented the setup to function properly. Since then, Navistar has implemented a new series of SCR-equipped engines.

Lawsuit Against Amazon Points to New Challenges for Trucking Industry

February 11, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

A recent lawsuit filed against Amazon and AAA Freight is shedding light on what many throughout the industry have had growing concerns about; prioritizing shipping speed and cost savings for driver safety. In January of 2020, Timothy Weakley, a truck driver based out of Tennessee, claimed in a lawsuit against Amazon and AAA Freight, a trucking company who contracted with Amazon, that both companies were forcing the driver to work shifts that far exceeded the time allotted to drivers by federal law. Ultimately, these extended shifts resulted in Weakley falling asleep at the wheel. Additionally, Weakley claimed that both companies were working to falsify his driver logs in an effort to hide the drive time violations.

While the lawsuit is still in its infancy, and there appears to be many unanswered questions at this point, there is already one key takeaway from Weakley’s lawsuit that will likely have many asking questions about Amazon’s oversight and adherence to federal law. For instance, Weakley’s suit stated that Amazon was well aware of his drive time violations because of its “sophisticated freight tracking application” which was said to have tracked Weakley’s movement in the truck to the “millisecond 24/7.” If proven true, this could certainly result in a greater chance for Amazon being held liable for allowing Weakley to drive what he alleges was “20-30 hours or more with only an hour or two of rest.”

Without having an inside look into what the contract between both Amazon and AAA Freight looked like, we will have to wait and see how this lawsuit is handled in the future; however, one point remains clear; there is no doubt that as shipping speeds continue to enhance and volume rises, the trucking industry is being forced to adhere to increasingly high standards. Amazon is a billion-dollar company with a founder who just so happens to be the richest person in the world. The idea that a company with such power and influence could be asking its contractors to violate the federal law to meet its shipping standards, is not so far-fetched. On the other hand, even if some in the industry believe that Amazon has done nothing wrong and this lawsuit falls squarely on the shoulders of the contractor who actually employed Mr. Weakley, it’s not hard to imagine that a contractor wouldn’t be willing to push their employees to the limit to adhere to what we can only imagine is a lucrative shipping contract with Amazon. At a time when the trucking industry has once again been deemed to be struggling, would a trucking company really be willing to do something that could result in a deterioration of its relationship with one of the most powerful companies in the world?

Aside from focusing on whether Amazon could actually be held liable in this lawsuit, we must also remember that if the allegations that Mr. Weakley brought forth are proven true, this presents a major setback to any argument that federal drive time regulations are too strict and should become more flexible. Based on the proposed hours of service changes, truck drivers would be given more flexibility in dividing the required time they must spend in the sleeper berth of their trucks. We have written countless times about the effects of such a change, and this lawsuit only goes to show that such a change would likely result in further incidents where trucking companies are pushing their drivers to the limit.

More importantly, lawsuits such as this one must become a warning sign for drivers on the road. The reality is that while Amazon may be great for offering the best shipping speeds and price that money can buy, they have a well-documented history of failing to provide adequate safety standards for their employees, including truck drivers. If the allegations that Mr. Weakley brought forth are true, this means that the truck driver next to you could possibly have been driving for more than 20 hours on the road. Imagine working for more than 20 hours in one day. Now imagine your work involving being responsible for a truck that weighs over 40,000 pounds and having to drive it safely. That is serious cause for concern. So, while many may see this lawsuit and may immediately jump to the conclusion that the independent contractor, AAA Freight, is clearly responsible for the employee’s truck crash, just try and think a bit more about what it means to have one of the most powerful companies in the world writing a check for your business.

American Trucking Association Targets “Nuclear” Verdicts

October 21, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

American Trucking Associations President Chris Spear is planning to lead the organization in fighting large court verdicts against the trucking industry. He claims the association is always quick to compensate those involved in cases in which the ATA is at fault, but that most cases are not being settled fairly.

“We’re growing very tired as an industry of being picked on by the plaintiff’s bar,” Spear said. “I think we’re growing very tired of padding the pockets of trial lawyers at the expense of trucking jobs, and we’re just not going to stand for it anymore.” Spear claims these verdicts are an “all-out assault” against the trucking industry, and therefore, ATA should be positioning itself to fight back.

Spear told Transport Topics Radio that he believes the number of lawsuits against the trucking industry is increasing as attorneys who specialize in these kinds of lawsuits are amping up their advertising. These are what he calls “nuclear” lawsuits.

He claims these “massive” suits come against the trucking industry regarding incidents that “are clearly not [its] fault,” and that trial lawyers in these particular suits are working a false narrative that the industry is “devastating the fabric of families involved in these accidents,” which he claims are usually not at the hands of truckers.

However, as any individual who has learned of any trucking-involved accident knows, this is clearly not the case.

We recently wrote about a historic “underride accident” case that comes after a slew of these accident reports over the past few years. Underride accidents take place when a car slides underneath a tractor trailer, and is one of the deadliest types of accidents on U.S. roadways.

The particular case referenced occurred when a family was awarded $42 million in a lawsuit against trucking company Barkandhi Express and Utility, when 16-year-old Riley Hein’s car became trapped under the side of a trailer made by Utility Manufacturing Company, causing the truck to drag Riley’s car for a half mile until it caught on fire, killing Riley immediately.

Trailers are not currently required to have side guards, even though the trucking industry has admitted in trial that over 200 people a year die in underride accidents.

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association says adding the weight of new guards to trailers would require companies to add more tractor trailers onto the roads, which it says would be more of an inconvenience than a safety benefit.

What is worse–documents revealed in Riley’s case show the TTMA asking major trailer manufacturers to provide detailed information regarding side guard costs so that the association could be able to potentially develop defense strategies against future underride lawsuits.

Still, Chris Spear and the American Trucking Associations have been handpicking cases to highlight only what they hope will gain public traction in opposition of lawsuits against the trucking industry.

Spear brought up a particular case in his Transport Topics interview, which occurred in 2014 and involved a pickup truck crossing a median and colliding with a tractor-trailer on a Texas interstate. The family of the pickup driver argued in court that the trucker should have pulled over due to inclement weather conditions, and the jury awarded them close to $90 million. The carrier, Werner Enterprises, is still working to appeal this decision.

“We’re paying substantial money to make [verdicts like these] right, and this [legal] profession needs to be called out,” says Spear.

However, Spear isn’t giving all of the facts of the case. According to court documents, evidence shows Werner had been staying quiet in regards to its disregard for safety policies around new student drivers. Each year, Werner hires 4,000 new drivers without previous truck driving experience. The driver in this case was a student driver, who exceeded 60 mph in icy conditions. The National Weather Service had been reporting freezing rain and icy roads 12 hours before the collision, yet Werner never communicated this warning to its driver.

“Werner’s lack of basic safety systems and its inadequate training processes for students drivers–combined with the business model of assigning student drivers on expedited deliveries–is creating a highly dangerous and unsustainable dynamic on U.S. Highways,” said the family’s co-lead counsel, Eric Penn of the Penn Law Firm.

What Spear also fails to mention is that the jury had heard the extent of the evidence and made what they believed to be a fair verdict. Of course, juries can make an incorrect judgment, but even when they do make a verdict against the trucking industry, tort reform comes into play.

Tort reform limits the recoveries awarded to those harmed by trucking industry dangers. This turns out to be nonsensical, as no two cases are the same and should always be judged on their own merits, not by limits on recovery.

The American Trucking Associations feels differently. Spear says verdicts like the one in the pickup truck case have made him decide to pledge to actively work with government leaders on tort reform efforts, even though he knows the overall view on the topic may not be in his favor.

“On the federal level, the votes may not be there for federal tort reform. In fact, I know that.”

If these limits weren’t enough, we have the trucking industry going to extreme lengths to avoid admitting fault in accidents. Not only is Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company working to appeal the $19 million it had to pay for its part in the verdict of Riley’s case, but it offered the Hein family a $14 million settlement if they kept all internal documents quiet.

In another case against Werner, court documents showed the trucking company staying quiet about its disregard for safety policies in regards to new student drivers–Werner hires 4,000 new drivers a year without any previous truck driving experience.

What Spear also doesn’t mention is the fact that trucking companies and their insurers hire as expensive and prestigious law firms for their cases as possible–so, not only are jurors always making decisions based on information from both sides, but these law firms are powerful and know how to swing a case in their favor–whether or not their techniques are ethical.

If verdicts like the ones Spear mentions are so unfair, what does that say about the trucking industry’s position and their lawyers’ abilities to make a compelling argument?

Understanding why lawsuits take so long

August 29, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

As the saying goes, “The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.” Many people express frustration at the length of time it takes to receive compensation after an injury, occasionally many years. While attorneys strive to set reasonable expectations for their clients, pop culture is constantly leading us to believe that cases are resolved in a matter of weeks or months. This is simply not true.

Let’s say that you were injured in a car wreck on New Year’s Day and your injuries required eight months of treatment before you were back to your old self. Most attorneys will not send an initial demand for payment to the at-fault driver before you have finished all treatment to best protect your interests. No attorney wants to send a demand (basically an official record of what the plaintiff’s team believes to be fair compensation) six weeks after the wreck, only to find out later that your injuries require surgery and your damages cost six times more than you anticipated!

So now it’s Labor Day, and the demand has been sent. It’s customary to allow the at-fault driver’s insurance roughly 30 to 45 days to respond. Fast forward to nearly Halloween and the at-fault driver’s insurance company is denying any wrongdoing. It looks like your attorney will need to file a lawsuit against the at-fault driver to compensate you for your injuries. Once the lawsuit has been filed with the Court, the at-fault driver must be properly notified and given time to respond. This can take anywhere from 45 to 90 days.

So now it’s Christmas, it’s been a full year since your injury, you have fully recovered but have a mountain of medical bills and lost wages, and your attorney is just now starting the legal fight. As you can imagine, there are dozens of additional steps along the way to reaching a resolution with the other side, and each one of those steps takes an additional 4 to 6 weeks, at least! Imagine sitting down with your friend to play a game of checkers, but there’s a catch: Each side must wait 30 days in between each move—the game would take forever! That’s a brief way of explaining how a lawsuit works—one side moves, the other side has X-number of weeks to respond.

While frustrating for clients, attorneys are doing everything in their power to get you compensated. No matter the time frame, it’s in your best interests to hire an attorney to navigate any legal obstacles that require serious expertise. Have a legal question about your case? Call our offices, one of our attorneys will be glad to speak with you.