Werner nuclear verdict case in Texas is hugely significant, says attorney at F3

In This Article:

Matthew Leffler discusses nuclear verdicts at F3. (Photo: Jim Allen/FreightWaves)
Matthew Leffler discusses nuclear verdicts at F3. (Photo: Jim Allen/FreightWaves)

(Editor’s note: The author of this article conducted the interview with Matthew Leffler at F3.)

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. – With oral arguments in the appeal of the landmark Werner Enterprises nuclear verdict case set to be heard by the Texas Supreme Court Dec. 3, trucking-focused attorney Matthew Leffler said at FreightWaves’ F3: Future of Freight Festival that “this is the most important case facing the trucking industry now.”

In a fireside chat from the main stage Wednesday at the event in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Leffler recapped what had happened in the 2014 crash that left one child dead and another paralyzed. The facts are not in dispute, though relatively few hands went up when the audience was asked who was familiar with the case.


A car carrying several people in snowy, icy weather crossed a median strip on Interstate 20 near Odessa, Texas, and collided head-on with a Werner truck. The jury ultimately put 70% of the blame on Werner, citing the fact that the relatively new driver’s trainer was asleep in the sleeper berth at the time of the collision and that there was no CB radio in the cab, among other factors. The initial, nearly $90 million verdict from 2018 has since ballooned to well over $100 million with accrued interest.

Werner has said in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that its out-of-pocket exposure is capped at $10 million, a figure that is also the generally accepted definition of a nuclear verdict in trucking.

“This is the most important case in our industry, because where these verdicts go is where your insurance premiums begin to rise,” Leffler said. “This is the nature of the industry. So we need to be aware of these things.”

He called the case “bananas” and the argument about lacking a CB “absurd.”


Leffler noted that the chief argument accepted by the jury was that given the wintry conditions, the Werner truck should have been going slower, though the truck was moving below the posted speed limit.

He also seemed to implicitly criticize the strategy of Werner’s attorneys not hammering out a settlement. “One of the things you don’t do as a lawyer is take a trial when a child passes away, because you’re not going to win those verdicts,” he said.

Given that the Werner (NASDAQ: WERN) truck was found to be well maintained and the truck was traveling under the speed limit – though reportedly faster than other traffic that had slowed as a result of the weather – Leffler said the message from the Werner case is, “We have to be vigilant on these things and be educated about what’s happening.”