Overview
Phillip Raine, a defense attorney representing motor carriers, logistics providers, and insurers, explained how large plaintiff firms are changing truck-accident litigation. These firms increasingly use aggressive advertising, early policy-limit demands, medical-provider relationships, litigation financing, and broad data requests to increase claim values and pressure carriers into settling quickly.
His central message was that carriers cannot wait until a lawsuit is filed to prepare their defense. They must investigate accidents quickly, preserve evidence, maintain clear records, involve insurers and defense counsel early, and avoid company policies that create unrealistic standards.
The changing plaintiff-lawyer model
Raine said many plaintiff firms now operate more like national marketing and intake companies than traditional local law practices. Their advertising encourages anyone involved in an accident to call, even when no serious injury was initially reported.
Potential clients may then be directed to preferred medical providers who recommend imaging, chiropractic care, injections, specialists, or surgery. The resulting treatment and bills are used to support a large demand against the carrier and its insurer.
The defense must therefore independently evaluate the crash, the claimed injuries, the treatment, and the value of the medical bills rather than accepting the plaintiff’s version of events.
Early policy-limit demands
Plaintiff attorneys are increasingly sending settlement demands within seven to 30 days of an accident. These letters may provide little medical documentation but claim that the person has a serious injury and will accept only the available insurance limits.
The offer may appear open-ended, only to be withdrawn shortly afterward. This creates pressure before the insurer and defense team have completed their investigation.
Carriers should expect defense counsel to request records and driver interviews immediately. The goal is to understand the case and prepare a response before an early demand arrives.
Demands may be hidden in routine letters
Raine warned that a letter titled as an evidence-preservation notice may also contain a policy-limit demand buried near the end.
Every communication from plaintiff’s counsel should be reviewed promptly by the insurer and defense counsel. Missing a demand could create additional problems for the carrier or insurance company.
Investigate before the other side controls the story
Plaintiff firms increasingly send investigators to truck crashes immediately, sometimes before formally signing a client.
Carriers should assume the other side may already be collecting photographs, witness statements, vehicle measurements, and other evidence.
The defense should quickly:
- Interview the driver
- Preserve photographs and video
- Collect driver, maintenance, dispatch, and hours-of-service records
- Inspect and download the truck
- Identify witnesses
- Notify the insurer
- Retain experts when appropriate
The goal is to develop the facts independently rather than respond later to a story created entirely by the plaintiff’s attorney.
Control access to the truck
When a truck is held at a tow yard, defense counsel should notify the facility not to move, alter, release, or allow access to the vehicle without authorization.
If the plaintiff requests an inspection, Raine prefers a joint inspection with experts from both sides present. This allows each side to observe the measurements, downloads, and handling of the vehicle.
Minor accidents can become major claims
A crash may initially appear insignificant. No injuries are reported, law enforcement does not blame the truck driver, and there is little visible damage.
The truck may be repaired and returned to service. Months later, the carrier may receive a claim supported by tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, along with an argument that it should have preserved more evidence.
Not every fender bender requires a catastrophic-response team, but carriers should establish clear thresholds for:
- Notifying the insurer
- Preserving video and electronic data
- Photographing the equipment
- Delaying repairs
- Conducting a fuller inspection
Lien-based medical care
Raine identified lien-based treatment as a major driver of rising claim values.
Under this arrangement, the provider does not bill the patient’s health insurance. Instead, the provider charges the full stated amount and agrees to wait for payment until the personal-injury case settles.
If the settlement is large, the provider may seek the full bill. If it is smaller, the provider may reduce the balance while expecting future referrals from the plaintiff’s attorney.
This can turn an accident involving mild soreness into a claim involving extensive imaging, chiropractic treatment, injections, specialists, and possible surgery.
Challenging medical bills
Defense attorneys can question providers about:
- Why health insurance was not billed
- Whether the listed charges are normally collected
- Whether the patient must pay if no settlement occurs
- Whether the treatment was medically necessary
- Whether the same care would have been recommended outside litigation
- The provider’s relationship with the plaintiff’s attorney
- Whether the bill changes based on the settlement amount
The goal is to separate the amount printed on the bill from the actual value and necessity of the treatment.
Medical litigation funding
Third-party companies may also finance medical treatment connected to personal-injury claims and expect repayment from the settlement.
This funding can allow treatment and expenses to continue growing even when the patient could not otherwise afford that level of care.
Defense counsel should determine whether treatment was financed, lien-based, connected to attorney referrals, or governed by repayment agreements.
Data extends beyond the truck
Relevant evidence may include more than the ECM, cameras, and telematics systems.
Plaintiff attorneys may seek information from:
- Personal and company cellphones
- Passenger or team-driver phones
- Personal GPS devices
- Smartwatches
- Fitness and biometric devices
- Applications recording location, movement, heart rate, or falls
Not all of this information will ultimately be admissible, but carriers should assume that opposing counsel may request any relevant data within the carrier’s or driver’s control.
Personal-phone preservation
Drivers are often reluctant to surrender personal phones because they contain private information unrelated to the crash.
In some cases, Raine has arranged for the driver to receive a replacement phone while the original device is turned off, placed in airplane mode, and preserved for a possible examination.
Carriers should consider clear policies addressing where personal devices must be stored and whether they may be used while driving.
Cameras can help or hurt
Raine said outward-facing cameras have become increasingly valuable because they can prove another vehicle caused the crash.
Inward-facing cameras create more risk. They may prove that the driver was attentive, but they can also allow plaintiff attorneys to criticize normal behavior, such as briefly picking up a drink, even when it had nothing to do with the accident.
Camera and GPS systems may also generate false alerts. Carriers should investigate inaccurate speeding or behavior warnings and correct technical problems rather than allowing misleading records to accumulate.
Training must be documented
Driver training is examined in almost every trucking case. Many companies provide more training than their drivers initially remember, including:
- Orientation videos
- Online courses
- Ride-alongs
- Safety meetings
- Monthly reminders
- Camera coaching
- Weather and equipment training
The problem is often not a lack of training, but a lack of proof.
Raine recommended maintaining simple records such as attendance sheets, electronic acknowledgments, completion certificates, dates, topics, testing results, and coaching records.
The strongest evidence connects the training directly to the individual driver.
Avoid unrealistic company policies
Raine cautioned carriers against broad statements such as:
- “All accidents are preventable.”
- “A driver can always stop in time.”
- “Drivers are responsible for preventing every accident.”
- “Safety is our number one priority.”
These statements may sound positive, but plaintiff attorneys can use them to argue that the carrier created a higher standard than the law requires and then failed to meet it.
Policies should be realistic, measurable, relevant to operations, and consistently enforced.
Policies can affect summary judgment
Defense attorneys continually look for ways to end a case before trial. One option is summary judgment, where the judge decides that no reasonable jury could find the carrier or driver responsible.
Poorly drafted policies can create factual disputes that prevent this outcome. Even if the driver followed the law, the plaintiff may argue that the driver violated the company’s own stricter standard.
Clear and enforceable policies make it easier for defense counsel to argue that the carrier acted reasonably.
Repeated unsafe behavior must be addressed
When cameras or supervision identify repeated unsafe conduct, the carrier should document its response.
A first event may justify coaching. Repeated behavior should lead to stronger retraining or discipline. If a driver repeatedly disables safety equipment or ignores alerts, the company must determine whether that individual should continue driving.
The company should be able to show that it identified the behavior, responded appropriately, documented the response, and followed its own process.
Damage arguments and state caps
Economic damages include measurable losses such as medical bills and lost income. Noneconomic damages include pain, suffering, inconvenience, and future discomfort.
Plaintiff attorneys may use comparisons involving famous artwork, athletes, or the value of human life to encourage juries to consider extremely large awards.
Some states cap noneconomic damages, while courts in other states have overturned those limits. Because the rules vary, carriers operating across multiple states may face very different levels of exposure.
Practical actions for carriers
Carriers should:
- Notify insurers promptly
- Involve defense counsel early
- Review legal letters for hidden demands
- Preserve truck, camera, phone, and wearable-device data
- Control access to vehicles at tow yards
- Establish investigation thresholds for minor accidents
- Document training and coaching
- Correct inaccurate camera alerts
- Maintain enforceable device policies
- Remove unrealistic language from safety manuals
- Document responses to recurring unsafe behavior
Main takeaway
Billboard lawyers are using faster, more organized, and better-financed strategies to increase the value of trucking claims.
Carriers cannot control how plaintiff firms advertise, refer clients for treatment, finance medical care, or present an accident. They can control how quickly they investigate, how well they preserve evidence, how clearly they document training, and whether their policies are realistic and consistently enforced.
Raine’s core recommendation was to make the defense attorney’s job easier before an accident occurs. Strong documentation and early action allow the case to focus on what actually caused the crash rather than preventable gaps in the carrier’s procedures.