Lessons from a Deposition: Insight into One Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Strategy for Establishing Broker Liability

Broker liability has become a growing target in trucking litigation, as plaintiffs’ attorneys increasingly seek to reach the “deep pockets” of freight brokers. That trend gained momentum after the $23.8 million verdict upheld in Sperl v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., where the court focused on the broker’s “indicia of control” over the driver. Recent depositions show plaintiffs pushing Sperl even further—using contract language and carefully framed questions to elicit testimony suggesting control or even a joint venture—underscoring the need for thorough deposition preparation of broker representatives before seemingly routine questions create unintended exposure.

“Wait, I didn’t sign that contract…” How You May Find Yourself Bound to Someone Else’s Forum-Selection Clause

“Wait, I didn’t sign that contract…” This common refrain can lead to unexpected legal entanglements, especially in the trucking industry. Courts have often ruled that even nonsignatory defendants can be bound by a co-defendant’s forum-selection clause if they are deemed “closely related” to the dispute. From tortious interference claims to broker liability and corporate overlaps, the nuances of these legal principles can significantly impact your client’s position. Discover how your client might inadvertently find themselves tied to another’s contractual obligations and what strategies can be employed to navigate these complex situations.