Why trucking cases are different
A rear-end collision involving a commercial truck is not the same case as a rear-end collision involving a passenger car. The regulatory framework alone creates leverage that most PI demand letters don't fully exploit — and that leverage is money on the table.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) impose specific, documented obligations on trucking companies and their drivers. When those obligations are violated, you don't just have negligence — you have negligence per se, potential punitive exposure, and in many cases, corporate liability that goes well beyond the individual driver.
The violations that move cases
Hours-of-service violations (49 C.F.R. § 395.3)
This is the most common and most valuable. A driver who has logged more than 11 hours of driving time, or more than 14 hours of on-duty time, is in violation — and that violation is documented in the carrier's own electronic logging device (ELD) data. When your demand letter cites the specific hours logged and ties them to the violation, the carrier's exposure changes immediately.
Inadequate vehicle maintenance (49 C.F.R. § 396)
If the accident involved brake failure, tire blowout, or any mechanical issue, request the carrier's inspection and maintenance records immediately. Carriers are required to maintain these. If they've been negligent about maintenance, those records are a roadmap to liability.
Negligent hiring and retention (49 C.F.R. § 391)
Carriers are required to check drivers' safety records, employment history, and driving records before hiring them. If the driver had prior violations and the carrier hired them anyway — or kept them on after violations — that's negligent entrustment and potentially punitive territory.
When a trucking company's own logbooks show a violation, you're not alleging negligence. You're citing their own records against them.
How to structure the demand
Trucking demand letters should be structured differently from standard PI demand letters. The liability section needs to do more work:
- Lead with the regulatory violation. Cite the specific CFR section. State the driver's logged hours at time of impact. Make it impossible to read the letter without understanding that this is a FMCSA violation case.
- Name the carrier as a defendant, not just the driver. Respondeat superior is obvious — but negligent entrustment and negligent supervision create independent bases for corporate liability.
- Request preservation of evidence early. ELD data, driver qualification files, inspection records, GPS data, and dashcam footage are subject to destruction. Send a preservation demand the day you're retained.
- Quantify the exposure separately. In your damages section, call out punitive exposure explicitly. Most trucking policies are $1M minimum. Make clear that the regulatory violations create risk beyond the policy limits.
What insurers look for in trucking cases
Commercial trucking insurers are sophisticated. They've seen thousands of demand letters and they know immediately whether the attorney on the other side understands trucking litigation. A letter that cites specific CFR sections, references ELD data, and accurately characterizes the corporate liability exposure signals that you know what you're doing — and that defending this case through trial will be expensive.
A letter that says "the truck driver was tired and hit my client" signals the opposite.
Common mistakes in trucking demands
- Treating it like a standard car accident case — the regulatory framework is the leverage, and ignoring it leaves money behind
- Failing to preserve ELD and GPS data immediately — this evidence has short retention windows
- Not naming the carrier's parent company if one exists — corporate structures in trucking are often designed to limit liability
- Settling too fast without conducting at least a preliminary investigation into the driver's safety record