Blog

An opinion filed by the Illinois Supreme Court on April 21, 2022, will have a tremendous impact on the trucking industry. In McQueen v. Green, 2022 IL 126666, the Illinois Supreme Court held that plaintiffs may pursue separate claims for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and negligent retention against a trucking company/employer for the employer’s conduct in failing to reasonably hire, supervise, or retain an employee, even where the trucking company/employer admits vicarious liability for its truck driver/employee.

In departing from long-standing precedent and ...

Trucking companies should preserve a vehicle’s infotainment system data re its operation in critical seconds before collision

Trucking companies providing last-mile delivery need to be aware of potential claims they face and protections they have against such claims

The Illinois Department of Insurance cannot adjudicate employment status disputes relating to insurance premium calculations. That is the ruling from the Illinois First District Court of Appeals in a significant decision with ramifications for trucking companies utilizing owner-operator agreements.

The case, CAT Express, Inc. v. Muriel, 2019 IL App (1^st) 181851, concerned whether truck drivers retained under an owner-operator agreement are employees or independent contractors for the purpose of workers’ compensation insurance. CAT Express (“CAT”), an Illinois ...

As defense counsel in the trucking industry have seen in recent years, broker liability is a burgeoning area in which plaintiff’s attorneys are beginning to explore as a means to reach the elusive “deep pockets” of many of our broker clients. Much of the lure of broker liability began with the $23.8 million judgment against a freight broker that was upheld by an Illinois appellate court in Sperl v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 946 N.E.2d 463 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). At the most surface level of the issue, the court’s decision in Sperl rested primarily upon the significant ...

Although it might seem like a clear-cut argument—“my client cannot be bound to a contractual provision when it was not a party to the contract”—courts have routinely rejected it. In doing so, these courts have often ordered that a defendant is then bound to a forum selection clause found in a co-defendant’s agreement with the plaintiff. In order to reach this result, however, the court must conclude that the nonsignatory defendant is sufficiently “closely related” to the dispute in the underlying action, such that it was foreseeable that the nonsignatory defendant ...