Now, a recent report by The New York Times explores how those figures may soon be significantly reduced – with the prospect of self-driving trucks. The report cites a CB Insights log detailing the fact that companies and investors have put more than $1 billion into self-driving technologies for trucks, which was 10 times what was being invested in just three years ago. Further, auto manufacturer Tesla is slated soon to unveil an electric truck that has a number of self-driving abilities. Meanwhile, a California start-up announced it’s been testing self-driving truck technology in partnership with a truck leasing firm and a large appliance company.

Most in the industry agree self-driving trucks will be reality, but there is disagreement as to exactly when we can expect it. However, there is strong speculation it will happen a lot faster than fully self-driving passenger cars.

The reason is because while passenger cars routinely must navigate urban streets that are often chaotic, most large trucks spend most of the time operating on a straight trajectory across sparse highway landscapes. Additionally, while self-driving cars have to contend with fickle consumers, companies interested in logistics are mostly unemotional about allowing upgrades if it makes financial sense. There is also speculation self-driving trucks will be on the road long before self-driving taxis.

Self-driving trucks could mean big changes for the $700 billion-a-year industry, which affects virtually all consumer products, natural resources and development. The sheer size of the injury creates an incentive for efficiency, which is why automation makes sense. In fact, a number of companies are racing to develop the technology and get these advanced vehicles on the road so that they can start turning higher profits.

Already, many large trucks have a number of self-driving features. For example, the 7,000 trucks owned by US Xpress are all equipped with collision avoidance systems and autonomous breaking. Automated lane-steering features are expected to be incorporated into the fleet next year.

Still, beyond whatever technical hurdles that may exist, there may be regulatory ones as well. And we can’t discount the shock and perhaps wariness some other motorists might feel seeing a truck operating down the road with no driver. It’s inevitable too that one of these trucks will at some point be involved in a collision, and if fault is found with the self-driving truck, that raises a host of legal liability and regulatory issues to grapple with. That could slow the process down too.

There is no doubt, however, that the financial ripples of expanding self-driving technology is going to affect everything from insurance premiums to road design. One downside, of course, is that career truck drivers may be out of a job. Some in the tech industry say this could be resolved by having the trucks operate autonomously on long highways, but still require a driver to navigate stops and the end of the trip details.

Truck accidents result in billions of dollars of economic impact each year, not to mention the devastating toll on individuals and families. These are complex personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits, and require an attorney with extensive experience.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Self-Driving Trucks May Be Closer Than They Appear, Nov. 13, 2017, By Conor Dougherty, The New York Times

More Blog Entries:

Pizza Deliver Crash Raises Questions of Employer Liability, Nov. 14, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Truck Accident Lawyer Blog

Trucking carriers are required to carry insurance by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and they don’t follow the same rules as those required for passenger vehicles. In general, policies that cover semi trucks are much larger than those that cover passenger vehicles, primarily because it’s well-established that these vehicles tend to cause far more damage when involved in an accident. Typically, you don’t want to settle a truck accident claim too quickly because it’s important to have a good idea to have a better handle on the type and scope of injuries, the necessary treatments involved and the impact it will have on one’s work and home life.

Because it’s not uncommon in these cases for victims to be dealing with more than one commercial insurance company, it’s imperative to seek the assistance of an experienced truck accident lawyer.more

Let’s look, for example, at the recent truck accident wrongful death case of Great West Cas. Co. v. Robbins, recently weighed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The matter before the court did not have to do with liability for the crash. Rather, the action was to ascertain whether a commercial insurer had an obligation to indemnify defendant truck driver and his employer. The insurer argued it shouldn’t have to, but the defendants and a second commercial insurer argued it should.

For plaintiff, of course, indemnification by this insurer would mean the potential for additional damages, which were extensive given that this was a wrongful death lawsuit.

According to court records, the crash happened in January 2011 when a tractor-trailer driven by defendant Philips struck a vehicle operated by decedent Robbins on a highway in Indiana. Robbins died from his injuries. At the time, Philips was an employee of Hoker Trucking, LLC and was driving the tractor-trailer in the course and scope of her employment. That company is based in Iowa and owned the tractor driven by Philips. However, the trailer that was being hauled was on loan from a company called Lakeville Motor Express Inc., based in Minnesota. However, Lakeville wasn’t even the actual owner of that trailer. The owner was a company called Wren Equipment, LLC, also based in Minnesota. Wren had leased the trailer involved in the crash on a five-year basis to Lakeville for $22,600 per month and provided insurance on those trailers. After the five years were up in 2006, the lease converted to a month-to-month, though at the time of the crash, Lakeville had signed on a 1-year lease extension. At that point, Lakeville agreed to provide at least $1 million in insurance coverage. The trailer continued to be leased until 2013.

To satisfy the lease agreement, Lake purchased a $5 million commercial insurance policy from Great West Casualty Co., and Wren was added on as an additional insured policy. Neither Philips nor Hoker were named as insured parties on that policy. Meanwhile, Hoker was insured by Northland Insurance Company, which provided $1 million primary coverage at the time of the crash.

Plaintiff, decedent’s widow, filed a lawsuit in state court against the trucking company, its driver and the company that leased the trailer, alleging negligence. The company that leased the trailer was later dismissed form the action.

Subsequently, Great West filed a request seeking declaratory judgment stating it was not liable to defend or indemnify the trucking company or its driver for the crash. Trial court ruled the Great West policy unambiguously excluded Hoker and Phillips as insured parties under the policy, which meant plaintiff would not be entitled to collect on that $5 million policy. The 7th Circuit affirmed, finding that because the trailer was being driven in furtherance of Hoker’s business – not Lakeville’s – the policy unambiguously excluded coverage.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Great West Cas. Co. v. Robbins, Aug. 16, 2016, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

More Blog Entries:

Road Debris Causes Thousands of Florida Car Accidents Annually, Aug. 15, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Truck Accident Attorney Blog