Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

February 8, 2016

Transportation Annual Year in Review: 2016

Once again our Transportation Team highlights relevant cases in transportation law from 2015 with more than 28 stories and relevant case links.

You can begin to read below and click the link to open the full newsletter.

  1. The ISO Motor Carrier Form

    The ISO motor carrier form was unveiled in 1993, although it did not get much traction in the industry until ISO announced in 2009 that it would no longer support its truckers form. Much of the case law in the succeeding years, though, has continued to involve the truckers form and its equivalents, or those sections of the motor carrier form which are not markedly different from parallel provisions in the truckers form. This year's summary begins with two decisions which wrestled with terms that are unique to the motor carrier form. If these cases are typical, the motor carrier form might not be as easy to apply as has been advertised – one case was won through clever lawyering and the other appears to have been wrongly decided or at least wrongly reasoned.

    The structure of Great West Casualty Co. v. National Casualty Co., 53 F. Supp 3d 1154 (D.N.D. 2014), aff'd 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21129 (12/7/15) is familiar enough – it was a dispute between the non-trucking insurer (Great West here) whose insured, Steven Heinis, had leased his rig (both tractor and trailer) to a motor carrier (National Casualty's named insured Avery Enterprises). Under the terms of the lease, Heinis agreed to maintain the equipment and keep the rig in compliance with USDOT regulatory standards. Heinis was responsible for the cost of repairs, maintenance and fuel. Days before the accident, Heinis, who hauled wastewater from fracking sites, had noticed a leak in the trailer. Heinis brought the rig to Avery's own repair shop (he could have selected any shop), backed the trailer into the shop and detached the tractor (as he recalled), and Avery's mechanics started to work on a crack in the trailer's loading valve. Jesse Miller was welding the pipe when an explosion occurred, causing Miller to suffer significant bodily injury. He recovered workers' compensation benefits, but also filed a lawsuit against Heinis for negligence. Suing his employer Avery was, of course, not an option...(more)

This is just one of the topics covered in this year's Annual Review. Click here to read the full newsletter.

Featured Media


OMIG's Abbreviated Self-Disclosure Process: What Providers Need to Know


Massachusetts High Court Ruling Raises Standard of Care, Stakes for Broker-Dealers


New York State Passes Law Barring Employers From Mandating Employee Attendance at Captive Audience Meetings


Second Department Declines to Expand Scope of Arons


NYS DOH Issues New Notice Requirement for Facility Fees


Massachusetts Proposes Adoption of 2022 UCC Amendments for Hybrid Transactions

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out