The GigReporter

Supreme Court to Weigh in on Explosive ‘Nuclear Verdicts’ Threatening Trucking Industry

The U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to review one of the most consequential legal battles facing America’s transportation sector: the rise of so-called “Nuclear Verdicts.” These cases-where trucking accidents trigger massive, often multi-million-dollar punitive damage awards-have sent shockwaves through the industry, driving up insurance costs and reshaping how companies vet their drivers.

At the heart of these lawsuits is a simple but devastating claim: trucking companies acted negligently by putting a driver behind the wheel when a reasonable person would have known they shouldn’t be driving. Plaintiffs have increasingly leveraged this argument to secure eye-popping jury awards that critics say are less about justice and more about punishing deep-pocketed carriers.

The legal landscape has been fractured. Some courts, including the Seventh Circuit in Montgomery v. C.H. Robinson, have ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts these state negligence claims, offering companies a crucial shield. But other courts disagree, leaving the industry trapped in a patchwork of conflicting rulings.

Now, with the Supreme Court stepping in, the stakes couldn’t be higher. A ruling against preemption could open the floodgates to more litigation, skyrocketing errors-and-omissions premiums, stricter vetting of carriers, and relentless legal battles over every document, insurance verification, and driver background check. Brokers and carriers alike would find themselves under an unforgiving microscope.

But if the Court sides with preemption, the industry could see a reprieve-one where lawsuits focus squarely on the accident itself, rather than creative forum-shopping and backdoor attacks on hiring practices.

The outcome will set the tone for the future of trucking liability in America-and every player in the transportation chain need to watch this decision closely.