Energy On The Offensive #060 - So... An $82 Million Verdict Just Happened.

Good Morning!

This is an interesting one.

Case Summary:

• Motorcycle vs commercial truck crash - $82,105,345 jury verdict in Jefferson County, Ohio.

• Liability in the case was disputed. The policy report and highway patrol crash reconstruction favored the defense. **Their is a bonus lesson at the end that identifies how one deposition changed the cases trajectory - don’t miss it!

• Plaintiff (age 33) riding a motorcycle was struck by a heavy commercial utility truck owned by one company and operated by a driver employed by a sister company.

• The driver (a long‐time Commercial Driver’s License holder) was operating the DOT-licensed vehicle, and the companies had no safety program for their commercial drivers (other than “follow the law”). Neither had a budget for safety programs.

• At the scene, the driver claimed the motorcyclist turned left in front of him; however, three lay witnesses testified the truck was speeding (60-65 mph in a 55 mph zone), the truck veered left of its lane/midline, the motorcycle was close to the midline of an unmarked intersection, and the truck continued hundreds of feet after impact, rotated 180°, skidded backwards and crashed into a median.

• The plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries: left arm and left leg amputations, severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) with epidural hematoma, etc. He was found 0% at fault for the crash.

 Lessons We Can Learn:

1. Active Commercial Driver Safety Program Required

a. Having drivers licensed under CDL and operating DOT-regulated vehicles triggers heightened safety obligations. In this case, the companies admitted they had no dedicated safety program or training for commercial drivers.

b. Lesson: Companies should develop, document, implement, and monitor commercial driver safety programs: regular training, driving records reviews, periodic safety audits, incident reporting/analysis, driver monitoring (speed, driver behavior), and formal policies.

2. Clear Corporate Structure, Responsibility & Employer/Driver Relationship

a. The case involved two companies (Hilltop Energy and D.W. Dickey) supposedly related, a truck owned by one, a driver working for another. At trial, confusion about the employer/employee relationship hurt the defense.

b. Lesson: Ensure accountability and clarity in fleet operations: vehicle ownership vs employer, who assigns drivers, who maintains vehicles, who supervises drivers. If multiple entities are involved (sister companies, parent‐child), document who is responsible for operations, maintenance, training, and insurance.

3. Proper Incident Investigation & Documentation

a. In this case, the truck continued a long distance after impact, there were skid marks, gouge marks, and witness statements that contradicted the driver’s version of events. The plaintiff’s side used strong reconstruction evidence.

b. Lesson: When an incident occurs, have an attorney protected rapid response procedure: preserve scene evidence (photos, video, gouge/skid marks, vehicle data recorder, obtain witness statements, log driver’s version, and secure telemetry/ECM data. Early investigation strengthens defense and prevents surprises at trial.

4. Culture of Safety & Safety Budgeting

a. The companies in the case admitted they had “no budget for safety programs” in depositions. That admission likely hurt the defense's credibility.

b. Lesson: It’s not just written policies but the active demonstration of safety culture (budget, resources, leadership commitment) that matters. If a company says “other than follow the law” and has no dedicated budget, it’s a red flag. The jury may view the company as indifferent to safety.

**Bonus Lesson**

This was released by the plaintiff’s who won the case:

By the time the expanded trial team joined the case, nearly all the discovery had already been completed. The team was permitted to take only one additional deposition—of the truck driver himself. In that single deposition, the trial team masterfully shifted the liability narrative, dramatically strengthening our clients’ case.

The driver admitted he was looking away from the road for over 400 feet, and was not even aware of what he hit.  He acknowledged that he had misrepresented that the motorcycle turned left in front of him to police at the scene.  He admitted that while he had seen Shank's motorcycle approximately a 1/4 mile before the crash, he never saw him again before he hit something.  He noted that when he hit the object he didn't know what he had hit.  As a result, we knew that the original police reconstruction was incorrect.  If he didn't see what he hit, he clearly didn't see Shank turn his motorcycle left in front of the truck.

Following that, the trial team prepared detailed demand letters that laid out the evidence and warned of the insurance bad faith implications if the defendants refused to settle. Those demands were ignored by the defendants, their insurers, and defense counsel.

Lesson: Treat every deposition like it is game day and your team is playing the super bowl. Ensure that your team is prepared by a litigation psychologist. You do not want anyone representing your company to be taken advantage of by reptile tactics. As you can see from reading the above, this deposition was the key to the case.

Want more control over how your companies claims are managed?

The claims handling and defense is critical yet most insurance companies do a poor job. Plaintiff attorney’s are winning and exploiting the system. You pay all the premiums yet have no say or control.

There is a way for your company to gain control and actually have a say in what happens regarding claims. If you’re interested in learning how, give me a call at (501) 581-7226 or respond to this email.

Best,

Ray-