The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) recently obtained favorable court decisions in three different class-action lawsuits against Allied Van Lines, C.R. England and Arctic Express.

These rulings move forward the fight of the nation's largest trucking association to protect small-business truckers from motor carriers' violations of the federal truth-in-leasing regulations.

Four-year statute of limitations upheld in OODA vs. Allied Van Lines Inc.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed arguments by Allied Van Lines that a two-year statute of limitations should be applied to the class-action suit brought by OOIDA on behalf of owner-operators. Instead, the court agreed with the OOIDA position that a four-year statute of limitations was applicable. The court's ruling means the plaintiffs have the potential of recovering damages dating back four years instead of just two years.

OOIDA filed a class-action complaint with two of its owner-operator members against Allied Van Lines Inc. and one of Allied's authorized agents, TFC Inc., on May 5, 2004. The complaint alleges that Allied Van Lines, through TFC, and TFC itself violated the truth-in-leasing regulations by making a series of undisclosed, undocumented and excessive chargebacks; by failing to provide rated freight bills to owner-operators; by deducting a percentage of the owner-operators' linehaul revenue to pay for its own insurance responsibilities; and by failing to return owner-operator escrow accounts within the required 45 days after termination of a lease agreement.

Court grants summary judgment against C.R. England attempts to compel arbitration of owner-operator claims

A federal judge in Utah granted OOIDA's motion for summary judgment and denied C.R. England's attempt to refer claims brought by OOIDA and several C.R. England drivers to arbitration.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart found that the company's independent contractor operating agreement is "unconscionable." The judge ruled that the operating agreements were too one-sided in favor of C.R. England and against drivers.

For example, the lease agreements allow C.R. England to choose whether to go to court or to bring a claim in arbitration. The lease agreements also give C.R. England the right to sell its claims to a collection agency and avoid the cost of either arbitration or a lawsuit.

In contrast, the agreements give drivers only one option - an expensive arbitration proceeding. The judge was "stunned" by the fact that C.R. England would insist that drivers submit their disputes to arbitration, yet C.R. England did not request arbitration for a single one of its 2,591 previous claims against drivers.

The judge also ruled that owner-operators are exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, because they are "workers actually engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce." In making this ruling, the judge relied on a similar decision by a federal court in Florida in another OOIDA action, OOIDA vs. Landstar.

Finally, the Utah judge found that the fact that drivers would be required to pay half the costs of an arbitration proceeding - which can be many thousands of dollars - in and of itself made arbitration an "inaccessible forum" for drivers to resolve their rights under the federal truth-in-leasing regulations.

Court approves settlement distribution in OOIDA vs. Arctic Express

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has issued an order approving a class settlement and settlement distribution plan in the lawsuit brought by OOIDA against Arctic Express. OOIDA had sued the carrier to recover maintenance escrow funds withheld from owner-operator drivers who had leased their trucking equipment from Arctic affiliate D&A Associates Ltd.

In August 2001, U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley ruled that Arctic Express had violated the federal leasing regulations and "absconded" with the escrow accounts of the owner-operators who terminated equipment and operating leases early. On Oct. 31, 2003, just before the scheduled trial to measure the damages owed to owner-operators, Arctic Express filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This action suspended the trial, but allowed Arctic Express to continue to operate.

Under the settlement agreement approved by the court, Arctic would pay from its bankruptcy estate an amount reflecting part of the total damages owed to owner-operators. With the settlement now approved, OOIDA and the class representatives will seek to have the remaining judgment satisfied out of funds that Arctic improperly transferred to third parties, including Comerica Bank, to pay off its debts.