Trucking Litigation2021-06-22T16:31:38+00:00
Home » Practice Areas » Trucking Litigation

Trucking Litigation

MF&L has extensive experience handling liability claims on behalf of companies, drivers, and liability insurers in the trucking industry, including motor carriers, package delivery companies, motor coaches, and other commercial motor vehicle operators involved in accidents with other motorists. MF&L’s experienced trucking lawyers provide full-service representation of the trucking company, driver, and insurer in catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases, in all state and federal courts throughout Georgia.

MF&L is also pleased to call as clients a number of trucking insurers and represents the interests of their insureds in casualty, subrogation, and cargo claims. The MF&L trucking group also consults with the insurers directly on coverage matters.

Related Articles:

REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS:

YRC Worldwide, Inc. (including Yellow Transportation, Roadway Express, and USF Holland and Glen Moore), FCCI Insurance Group, Occidental Insurance Company, Southeastern Claims, BAH Express

TRACK RECORD OF EXCELLENCE:

    • Brack v. CPPI of Ga., LLC, 357 Ga. App. 744 (2020): Mr. Rawls and Mr. Bruno obtained summary judgment for a construction general contractor in a suit where one of its subcontractor’s temporary employees asserted a personal injury claim.  The trial court found the injured employee was engaged in the subject matter of the GC’s work and, therefore, precluded from suing in tort under Georgia Worker’s Compensation exclusive remedy provision. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the order and the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari.  Brack v. CPPI of Ga., LLC, 357 Ga. App. 744 (2020) (cert denied June 21, 2021).
    • (February 2020) Mr. McKinley and Mr. Boyd secured a dismissal of a lawsuit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.  The court, even after considering deference to plaintiff’s choice of forum, determined that plaintiff’s attempt to sue a multinational company in its home county was improper forum shopping where the cause of action arose in another state.  The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the corporate headquarters location, without more, could constitute an appropriate venue for causes of action arising in other jurisdictions.

    • (November 2017) Mr. McKinley and Ms. Eckerson secured a dismissal of a lawsuit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.  The court, even after considering deference to plaintiff’s choice of forum, determined that plaintiff’s attempt to sue a multinational company in its home county was improper forum shopping where the cause of action arose in another state.  The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the corporate headquarters location, without more, could constitute an appropriate venue for causes of action arising in other jurisdictions.