Menu
In a remarkable legal ruling, Coyote Logistics, a subsidiary of UPS (NYSE: UPS), recently received a favorable decision in a high-profile truck accident case.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, led by Judge Karoline Mehalchick, granted Coyote Logistics a summary judgment, dismissing the charges against them in a fatal accident case. This case adds to the growing legal narrative around the liability of third-party logistics (3PL) companies in trucking accidents.
The accident in question occurred in October 2020 on Interstate 81 in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. Intriguingly, the load was double brokered, and Coyote Logistics was not directly involved with the carrier in the accident. The lawsuit, brought by the estates of Raven Lee and Anderson Bastone, who tragically lost their lives in the incident, also targeted other defendants, including the carriers implicated in the double brokering.
The case’s outcome hinges largely on the interpretation of the F4A. This act, primarily, precludes brokers from liability in incidents involving carriers they hire. This legal perspective isn’t unanimous, as seen in the Miller vs. C.H. Robinson case, where the Supreme Court declined to review a decision holding a giant 3PL liable.
Judge Mehalchick’s ruling underlines the legal community’s division on this issue. She acknowledges the lack of a definitive stance from higher courts, such as the Supreme Court or the Third Circuit, on broker liability under the F4A.
The industry eyes a potential Supreme Court review to resolve these conflicting interpretations. The recent request for certiorari in Ying Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, alongside the Coyote Logistics case, may pave the way for such a review. These cases represent differing federal court decisions on broker liability, further fueling the debate.
Todd Rubenstein of Taylor Nelson law firm emphasizes the significance of this ruling for the 3PL industry. He highlights that the allegations against Coyote Logistics were specifically related to their operations as a freight broker, not a failure in exercising general public care.
The case intricacies include the involvement of multiple parties, such as Golf Transportation, JP Logistics, O’Connor Trucking, and UNFI. The contractual terms between Coyote and Golf, prohibiting double brokering, were a focal point in the judge’s decision. Yet, the load was eventually handled by O’Connor Trucking, reflecting the complexities of the logistics and transportation industry.
Central to this case is the debate on state regulations’ impact on trucking services. Judge Mehalchick’s ruling highlights that imposing negligence liability on Coyote would directly influence the broker’s services, conflicting with F4A objectives.
Furthermore, the safety exemption under F4A, which allows state regulations on safety and liability, was deemed inapplicable to Coyote, as their role does not directly connect to motor vehicle operations.
The Coyote Logistics case marks a significant development in the legal landscape for 3PL companies. It underscores the complexities of broker liability in trucking accidents and sets a precedent that could influence future legal interpretations in this domain. As the industry and legal experts await potential Supreme Court involvement, this case remains a pivotal point in understanding and defining the liability of 3PL companies in the intricate world of logistics and transportation.
To help your trucking company grow.
Useful Links