July 18, 2025 • 38 mins
The trucking industry is facing rising costs due to a growing number of jury awards exceeding $10 million, commonly known as nuclear verdicts. Plaintiff attorneys are seeing greater success by using more aggressive tactics, leveraging jurors’ emotions, expanding advertising and applying best practices learned from prior trials — all of which are contributing to the rise in nuclear verdicts. In this episode of the Talking Transports podcast, Robyn Kazatsky, a partner at Lock Gordon Law Group, joins Lee Klaskow, Bloomberg Intelligence’s senior transportation and logistics analyst, to share her insights about how these verdicts are affecting the industry. Kazatsky also discusses third-party litigation funding, the push for tort reform, strategies trucking companies can use to mitigate risk, and how the impact of nuclear verdicts extends well beyond the companies directly involved.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Hi everyone, this is Lee clasgaw when We're Talking Transports.
Welcome to Bloomberg Intelligence Talking Transports podcast. I'm your host,
Lee Klaskow, Senior Freight, Transportation and Logistics analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence,
Bloomberg's in house research arm of almost five hundred analysts
and strategists around the globe. Before diving in a little
public service announcement, your support is instrumental to keep bringing
(00:30):
great guests and conversations to you, our listeners, and we
need your support. So please, if you enjoy this podcast,
share it, like it, and leave a comment. Also, if
you have any ideas for a future episode or just
want to talk transports, please hit me up on the
Bloomberg terminal, on LinkedIn or on Twitter at Logistics. Lee.
Now onto our episode I'm very excited to have with
(00:52):
us today. Robin Kazski a partner at the law firm
Locke Gordon. Robin represents corporations including Fortune five hundred companies,
self insured, transportation and insurance companies in various matters. With
nearly twenty years of trial and litigation experience, Robin has
tried multimillion dollar cases to verdict in state and Federal Courts.
(01:14):
Welcome to the Talking Transports podcast.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Robin, Good morning, Lee. Thanks so much for having me
on today.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
So one of the main reasons why I want to
have you on is, you know, to talk about nuclear
verdicts and all the things that have been going on
in transportation. But before we talk about that, why don't
you give us a little more color about Lockgardon and
your practice.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Absolutely so. I've actually been with Lock Gordon at this
point in time since about twenty twenty one. We all
of us really hail from I would say, Big Law, right.
We all come the founding partners and then the attorneys
that have come on kind of since then. We all
come from Big Law. But I think everyone got to
(01:59):
this point point where they decided that was just not
where they wanted to be anymore. We wanted to be
more of a boutique law firm, right, We wanted to
be able to focus and give very individualized attention to
our clients, and so they left Big Law started this
firm in twenty twenty one. I came on shortly thereafter,
(02:22):
and at this point it's really you know, there's about
ten of us attorneys, including the recent addition of two
additional associates in our Ohio office, with another attorney joining
our Pennsylvania office in the next two weeks. So we
are definitely growing, but I don't think that the plan
is for us to just continue to grow into another
(02:43):
one of these larger law firms that all of us
have come from in the past. That said, you know,
the goal here was to work with a group of
people where we really all just wanted to be around
one another. And that might seem hokey, but quite honestly,
it's just it's just true. You have a group of
attorneys all with an incredible amount of experience trying cases,
(03:06):
helping clients, whether it's from the inception of something occurring,
seeing it all the way through to trials and appeals,
and you just have a group that's willing to lean
on each other, you know, in and out on an
everyday basis.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
And I know you've been a defense attorney for a
lot of trucking and transportation names.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Can you just talk about your experience doing that?
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Absolutely? So, I didn't start off as a transportation attorney.
I'm actually a former criminal defense attorney, and that was
kind of where I thought I would be. All this
time going forward, but I would say things changed in
about two thousand and nine or so. I wound up
leaving criminal law and moving on to civil practice, and
(03:53):
I wound up joining a firm in a group that
was handling primarily commercial motor vehicle accidents and representation of
whether it was self insured trucking companies or insurance companies
and their insurance. And you know, I think you quickly
realize that this is a pretty niche area, and it's
(04:15):
kind of this tight knit family. And although there are
transportation attorneys obviously at many firms right throughout the areas
that we all practice in, and I personally am am Pennsylvania,
New York, and New Jersey, but my partners are actually nationwide.
You know, you just realize this is a, like I said,
a close knit community. And so I've been doing this
(04:38):
since about two thousand and nine, representing self insurance and
insurance companies and their insurance in commercial litigation, whether it's
catastrophic loss, whether it's you know, subrogation claims, whether it's
property damage, whether it's you know, anything having to do
with with downtime or any thing that really comes up
(05:01):
in the trucking and transportation industry. You know that said,
we obviously do more at our firm. It's all forms
of commercial litigation. We handle employment law. There's really a
little a little bit of everything.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
And I'm not sure you're going to name names here,
but some of your clients are some of the publicly
traded companies and some I'm assuming small.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Smaller firms absolutely ranges from the mom and pop trucking
company might have one truck, might have two trucks too.
While I won't name names, I will say we do
represent the one of the world's largest package delivery companies
at least by revenue.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
That is okay, all right, great, And so, like I
mentioned earlier, you know, I wanted to have you on
because I know you're you're involved, and you have to
deal with what's called nuclear verdicts. They sound scary and
deadly because nuclears in the name. Can you just talk
tell us, like, you know, what is a nuclear verdict?
(05:57):
How did we get to these types of verdicts and
kind of how do you defend against them?
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Sure? Absolutely so. Look, nuclear verdicts are most commonly known
to all of us in the industry as verdicts that
are in excess of ten million dollars. Now, that said,
you know, interestingly, when I was talking to one of
my partners last week, you know, the term nuclear verdict
can be a little bit misleading, right. Obviously, ten million
(06:25):
dollars is a lot of money, and nuclear certainly indicates
that it is something out of the norm. And that
is the case, right, it is out of the norm
a ten ten million dollar plus verdict. That said, you know,
sometimes context is everything. My husband would laugh. I think
that's like my mantra in life, right, context really is everything.
(06:46):
But I only say that to point out if you
have a case where you know, past medical expenses or
something like that, or twenty two million dollars, well, suddenly
a verdict of ten million, right would be would be
a win. That said, nuclear verdicts as we know them,
being ten million dollar verdicts are higher, are certainly on
(07:07):
the rise. And so you know, I thought, obviously for
everyone listening and my husband being a numbers guy, I
think numbers are just good for everyone, everyone as a
point of comparison. So I pulled some statistics just so
everybody can have a little bit of point of comparison.
So if you look up some of the statistics for
(07:27):
nuclear verdicts. In twenty twenty three, there are about eighty
nine verdicts in access of ten million dollars. There are
twenty seven verdicts in access of one hundred million dollars,
There are eight verdicts in access of five hundred million dollars,
and two verdicts in excess of one billion dollars, otherwise
(07:50):
known as a thermonuclear verdict. That said, if you jump
to twenty twenty four, suddenly the eighty nine verticts in
access of ten million becomes one hundred and thirty nine
verdicts in excess of ten million dollars, which is a
fifty two percent increase from twenty twenty three. Your twenty
(08:13):
seven verdicts in access of one hundred million dollars suddenly
becomes forty nine verdicts in access of one hundred million dollars.
In twenty twenty four, your eight verdicts in excess of
five hundred million dollars becomes forty nine verdicts in access
of five hundred million, and your two verdicts in access
(08:34):
of one billion dollars becomes five verdicts in access of
one billion dollars. So it is very clear that the
numbers are growing, and they are, They're just getting higher
at such an exponential rate. It's crazy. And when you
look at the top states for nuclear vertics, you have
Texas coming in first, you have California coming in second,
(08:57):
and you have my home state of Pennsylvania coming in third.
The only reason why Florida has even been sort of
knocked down to number ten on that list is because
of tort reform. And then I'm happy to give you
some you know, some some examples. I mean, we hear
these numbers and they just sound like, I mean, quite
honestly monopoly numbers.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
You have again my home state and the number one
judicial hellhole, Philadelphia County. Super awesome for US. October twenty
twenty three, there's a product liability case against Mitsubishi Motors
and it is a nearly one billion dollar verdict. I mean,
(09:39):
the these numbers just sound absolutely preposterous. Right. You have
Wabash National. There's a verdict of four hundred and sixty
two million dollars following a two thousand and nineteen crash.
Now it's important when you take some of these really
really large verdicts and you say, well, what was going
(10:00):
What was going on there? Right? What's the breakdown in
terms of compensatory damage in terms of punitive damages? You
want to know what component of that was pain and
suffering versus what component of that are things like medical
expenses or lost wages? You know, I think we see
(10:22):
some of these really big verdicts or like you might
have heard about some of the roundup verdicts that are
coming out of states like Pennsylvania and Georgia, and these
are multi billion dollar verdicts. Now, you hear about these numbers,
what you don't necessarily hear about then, is what happens
after the jury renders that verdict, right, meaning is it
(10:44):
going up on appeal? Does it settle at some point
in time after the appeal? Did a judge do what
is called mold the verdict for one reason or the other.
But you have these numbers that just sound so astronomical,
and I think it's really important for us to sort
of understand. You take these numbers, you understand them, you
(11:08):
hear them, but it's like, what was really going on
in some of these individual cases, right? And how how
did we get there? And I think that when we
are asked all the time. Okay, well, why are nuclear
verdicts growing? Why is this trend continuing to grow? Why
are you know, the numbers going up by you know,
(11:29):
fifty two percent in you know, in twenty twenty four
and compared to twenty twenty three. I don't think that
anyone will tell you that it is tied to any
one particular reason. It is probably due to a confluence
of various different factors. Right. You might just have good
(11:50):
old fashioned good lawyering. I mean, let's give credit where
credit is due. Right, you have plaintiffs attorneys that are
working their halls off to weave creative stories and to
constantly take advantage of what they are seeing their colleagues do.
That is working in one courtroom, maybe not in another.
(12:13):
They are doing a fantastic job of playing on jurors emotions. Right,
The probably the largest motivators in high verdicts are anger
and fear. Okay, well, how do you stoke anger and
fear in the minds of the jurors when the laws
in all the states very clearly say not supposed to
(12:36):
render a verdict just because of sympathy or emotions, or
anger or fear whatnot. Well, but then there have to
be other ways to do it. So plaintiffs lawyers are
using things like the reptile theory, okay, and the reptile
theory is a way for them to make jurors feel
scared it, you know, show them that there is a
(12:59):
danger here that this company or entity is sort of
putting out there to the public. And they almost want
to move away from whatever the individual incident accident is
that maybe was the subject matter of the case, and
they want to make it broader, right, So reptile theory
is a great way for them to think, you should
(13:20):
be scared. This company is dangerous, and this is what
they're doing, and this is why it's dangerous, and this
is why you need you need to punish this company.
You have other things like the use of anchoring, and
for your listeners that don't have any idea what anchoring
might be. This is based on a psychological premise of
(13:43):
giving a number, giving a number to the jury as
early as possible. So you have plaintiffs lawyers that are
doing a fantastic job of putting out numbers, these very
very large numbers to the jury panel, whether it's literally
at the beginning of Wader, which is when they're questioning
(14:06):
the jurors to determine who might sit on a panel
through potentially opening statements, through potentially witness testimony, and then
again in closing. So they're going to give them this
really high number so that when this number is put
out there, whether it's ten million, twenty million, five hundred million,
one billion, the number is there, right, And the idea
(14:29):
is the jurors are going to hear that number. They're
going to hear it early, and they're going to come
back to it when they are actually sitting in deliberations
and now and now talking about what you know, what
to do. You might have the judiciary. Quite honestly, that's
coming into play here. And what do I mean the judiciary, Well,
(14:51):
if you go back and you look at all of
these individual cases where we have these nuclear verdicts, and
I think also just in port or to clarify, you know,
when we talk about nuclear verdicts, we're talking about when
the number of damages, the amount of damages assessed is
(15:12):
so disproportionate to the actual like economic damages. Okay, what
is a person's past medical expenses? What literally the medical
treatment that they have to you know, pay for a
cost or the insurance company or whatnot. What was the
amount of the lost wages? What is the amount of
lost income? Maybe in the future when that number might
(15:35):
be x, But then the amount of damages that a
jury awards for pain and suffering is suddenly ten times
X or twenty times X or fifty times X. Right,
that's more what we're talking about when we see nuclear verdicts.
But going back to if you were to really take
a hard look at those individual cases where a nuclear
(15:58):
verdict came in or or a thermonuclear verdict came in,
you'd want to see what was going on in that
particular case. What was it that very specifically made the
jurors potentially angry or scared? Was it a ruling by
the judiciary, that's where the judiciary might come in, right, evidence?
What evidence came in? Did something come in in that
(16:22):
particular case that really stoked the emotions of the juror
that was potentially very prejudicial, that was over the objections,
let's say, of defense counsel that was really inflammatory. And
if that evidence had not come in, would you really
have been in a situation where that nuclear verdict might
(16:43):
have been rendered or not? So you have things, like
I said, you know, the reptile theory, factoring in really
good storytelling and creativity by the plane of spar you
have rulings potentially by the judges on what evidence you
know comes in or doesn't come in. And then I
would be remiss not to mention advertising. Right. Advertising has
(17:06):
become huge, and it's been a fantastic way I think
for plaintiffs lawyers to really normalize these giant numbers. I mean,
every time we're in the car with our kids and
we're driving down to the Jersey Shore, I can think
of a very specific stretch of highway that we're always
on and it's just billboard, billboard, billboard, billboard, billboard, right,
(17:30):
and they And the best is my kids even know
the names of some of these firms and the advertise
they spend millions of dollars on advertising, right, one one
million dollar verdict, ten million dollar verdict, one hundred million
dollar verdict. Well, in reality us seeing that, right, the
average person, just seeing that on a billboard, it's normalizing
(17:54):
these these giant, crazy astronomical numbers, right. So they and
it almost ties in I think a little bit to
anchoring right there. The plaintiffs lawyers in a courtroom are
prepping the jurors to hear about these very large numbers. Well,
the advertising billboards makes it look like that's the norm.
(18:14):
That is what they are going to do for their clients.
If you hire them, you're going to get a million dollar,
you're going to get a ten million dollar, You're going
to get one hundred million dollar verdict if you use
our law firm. So I think advertising has just become
absolutely huge in probably the last decade or so. And
(18:35):
I don't mean to keep talking, but this is something
I could probably spend six hours on, which I know
we don't have the time for today.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Yeah, and you know, one of the reasons why it's
so important for folks that aren't chucking because it increases
their insurance costs. They have higher claims, and then you
know they're going to need to increase rates to you know,
get a certain return on capital, so they keep on
reinvesting their equipment. So it does have a knock on
effect not only to the trucking companies, but also to
(19:06):
shippers and consumers as well.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
So you know, it has become inflationary. And can you
give maybe an example.
Speaker 4 (19:15):
Of you know one of these verdicts where there was
a true disconnect between the guilt or the liability of
the carrier versus you know what was awarded.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Sure, So, I mean look going back to you know
some of these some of these cases, I mean when
you think about so we have the case even maybe
from October twenty twenty three, okay, which was in Philadelphia County.
It's Mitsubishi Motors nearly a one billion dollar verdict for
(19:50):
a faulty seat belt design. Okay, this is one person
that winds up dying as a result of this accident,
which is off right. It's said, there's no human being
in this world that's going to tell you that that
is not tragic. Right, These are these are accidents. No
one is intending for these things to happen. But that said,
(20:15):
when you look at what the breakdown is of the verdict, okay,
which was nine hundred and seventy six million dollars, the
breakdown of the verdict was one hundred and seventy six
point five million dollars in compensatory damages. And compensatory damages
are supposed to put the person back in the condition
(20:35):
that person was prior to the accident, But then you
have eight hundred million dollars in punitive damages. That is
a wopping discrepancy, right, a wopping discrepancy in those two
in those two numbers, which is why it's obviously now
on appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and they're trying
(20:56):
to move for a new trial. But then when you
have you just you have other cases. You you have
in Georgia there was a Schneider National case forty seven
million dollar verdict for a fatal crash. Again, you have
one individual that passed away as a result of that accident.
Now you know about more notable cases, you know, like
(21:20):
for example, let's say you know the Tracy Morgan case.
And when you I think talk to lay people about well,
why why do these numbers become so big? And how
do you calculate damages? I think the average person doesn't
really understand what goes into our day to day when
we're talking about how to compute damages and well, okay,
why does forty seven million dollars sound so incredibly high
(21:43):
for you know, an accident that might have involved let's
say one one fatality And it's like, well, when you
have somebody like a celebrity, okay, and you and a
plaintiff's attorney can get up in front of a jury
and talk about how high those numbers should be because
this is how much money he was earning, and this
(22:03):
is how much money maybe he can't earn going forward.
That is not the norm, which is why when you
have a case like even the Schneider case in Georgia
with a forty seven million dollar verdict, you have to
ask yourself, well, what was it play there? Right? And
without going through all of the very particular you know,
transcripts from that trial, you're not going to know what
(22:27):
was that? What was that one thing that maybe just
really inflamed the jurors. But I would bet a lot
of money that if you went back to all of
these cases, there was something in particular that made those
juries angry with the company or it made them scared
of the company, and that is why maybe a verdict
(22:49):
was so high. But when you see things like one
hundred and seventy six million in compensatory eight hundred million
in you know, impunitive damages, that that is just there's
a disconnect, right, There's just a disconnect. It's the number
is so disproportionately high in contrast to the amount of
(23:09):
money that we're supposed to be giving an individual to
put him or her back in the place that they
were prior to, let's say, an accident. But then these
verdicts are just you know, they they have such a
larger impact on everyone. It's it's the mom and pop
trucking companies, it's the larger companies. It's the increase in
insurance premiums. It's the cost that then needs to be
(23:32):
passed down to the shippers, which, by the way, guys
ultimately gets passed down to you and me paying for
the items that are being transported by these companies. So
it has such large ramifications for the industry, and there's
a trickle down effect so that it eventually just gets
to you and me, whether we're you know, a lawyer
(23:53):
or we're checking people out at the local supermarket.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
Right.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
You know you mentioned earlier tort reform in Florida.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Are there any other states that are looking to do
something similar to I guess limit the payouts and I
guess I don't know if you if you know anything
about the Florida rule, what did they change?
Speaker 2 (24:13):
So in terms of I think things that maybe can
be done to sort of fight back against some of
these you know, nuclear and thermonuclear verdicts. Obviously, there's tort
reform going on throughout the United States, and certainly some states,
states like Florida, states like Iowa have enacted tort reform.
(24:36):
If I'm not mistaken, I believe Iowa has like a
five million dollar cap on damages, and there are certainly
bills that are working their way through various states, you know,
for the same type of result. Obviously, if there is
a cap on compensatory damages, then that you know, that
(24:56):
would certainly change the way that these numbers are you know, know,
are looking now punitive damages Again, It's it's again state
by state. Some states might have a ratio damages cannot
be more than you know, two times, three times, four times,
and that is something that you know, the push would
be in terms of reform obviously as well. But you know,
(25:19):
in addition to that, there are things that we as
the defense bar just quite simply need to do better
in terms of trying to fight back against these nuclear
verdicts and better represent our clients and just have an
overall better outcome for the industry. As a whole, you
(25:41):
have not only tort reform, but third party litigation funding
has become huge. There are these outside entities that are
actually funding litigation. Litigation is really expensive, you know, hiring
all these experts and witnesses and mock trials and folk
groups and all these different things. They are very, very costly.
(26:03):
So you actually have third parties that are funding litigation
and then taking a piece of a piece of the
pie even when it comes in. And that's huge because
then there are ethical concerns at play too, in terms
of who's calling the shots right, who's talking about strategy
and what you know, impact if any are these third
(26:27):
party litigation companies sources having on the decisions that are
being made between a planeff's attorney and his or her client.
And so you actually have you know, some judges or
some courts that are entering orders that there has to
be automatic disclosure of third party litigation. I think we
(26:47):
as defense lawyers, you know, I think it's known, very
well known, the planeffs attorneys have always worked better together
as truly a team. It has been more of a
team sport. They are constantly evolving and they are teaching
each other what works what doesn't work. We don't do
that as much as the defense bar. And it's understandable why.
(27:10):
In a certain regard, meaning plaintiff's attorneys, it's more like
a one off, right, Okay, you might have a repeat customer,
God forbid, something else bad happens, or they need you.
But generally you might be representing an individual, his or
her family and a state. You're going to do that
one time. Defense attorneys, we're just fighting for clients, right,
(27:32):
we're fighting for repeat business. And so we've known for
a long time that the plaintiff's bar, they put on
these great conferences, they talk about what works well, what
doesn't work well. We have to be better as defense
attorneys at sharing information. I think we have to also
just embrace the uncomfortable more. There's too many times where
(27:56):
you know things are being addressed at a trial, whether
it's you know, going into the gray area in terms
of cross examining or questioning witnesses at trial, or whether
it's what you're talking about during your closing arguments. And
I think sometimes defense attorneys are too afraid to confront
the awkward, the things that are being said by plantiffs Council,
(28:18):
the big numbers that are being put up there by
Plantiffs Council. We teach our children that they have to
get comfortable in the uncomfortable. Well, we have to, you know,
practice as we preach too. We as defense attorneys have
to be willing to live in the uncomfortable too. We
have to do a better job. We have to work together.
(28:39):
We have to share more information in terms of what
is working and what is not working. We have to
confront the big numbers when Planiffs Council. If you're in
a state, when I was talking earlier about anchoring and
putting out numbers early and as frequently as possible to
adjury these big numbers, to normalize them, you have to
(29:01):
understand you're not allowed to do that in every state. Okay,
so even Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a state where the plaintiff's
atorney is not able to get up and say, oh,
here is why you should award this particular plaintiff five
hundred million dollars. You can't do that everywhere. You can
do that some places, but you can't do that everywhere.
(29:22):
In the states where that is able to be done,
we have to put up our own numbers. We have
to explain to the jury early and as often as
possible why that number is astronomical and why our number
is more reasonable. We have to talk about what what
is the true impact of maybe an accident, What was
(29:44):
the true impact on that you know, particular individual's life,
and what does their life look like now? And then
why a number like one hundred thousand dollars or two
hundred thousand dollars or even five hundred thousand dollars that
isn't miss amount of money, a life changing amount of money,
and we have to talk about that because that is
(30:06):
something that the everyday duror who is no different than us,
can understand. We can put things in perspective, what a
bills cost, what does college cost? What does you know
buying a truck cost? And I think we have to
do a better job of being willing to put up
our own numbers and explain to a jury why what
we are saying at the end of the day is
(30:29):
more reasonable than what is coming out of the mouths
of the plaintiff's attorneys. I think, you know, there was
a great suggestion that was made by my partner to
me last week, and that was we need to use
focus groups not these really really expensive mock trials. We
need to use focus groups. Let's grab a group of
twenty people, thirty people, forty people. Let's show them video
(30:51):
if we have it. Let them ask the questions, let
them tell us what are they interested in? What caught
their attention? What do they want to know more? What
is really peaking their interests? What made them upset, what
made them angry? What made them scared to try to
play better on? What do we really need to focus
(31:12):
on in terms of how we are going to speak
to perspective jurors, you know, for this case. And so
I think there really are a number of things in
addition to the tort reform and in addition to third
party litigation funding, you know, the disclosure of information and
living in the uncomfortable and quite honestly, hiring better lawyers
(31:34):
that are just willing to use different tactics instead of
some of the you know, older stuff that we've been
kind of focused on. That clearly has kind of gotten
us to this point because while the Plaineff's attorneys, I
think have been willing to evolve more, I'm not sure
that the defense bar has been keeping pace right.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
And what are are there some legal issues that truckers
must contend with outside of these.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Nuclear verdicts.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Well, if you're talking about individual you know, mom and
pop type shops, or if you're talking it depends on
whether you're talking about you know, actual the person that
was driving. I mean, look, it's you know, you're being
everything's gone over with a fine toothed comb. You might
you know, you might lose lose your job, your mom
(32:24):
and pop might shut down. If you have a big verdict,
come in and that's it, right. I mean, if insurance
covers a verdict, great, If xcess insurance covers a verdict, great,
But if excess insurance doesn't cut it, then the cost
is being passed on to the company itself. The company
is going to be responsible for paying a verdict. That
(32:46):
might be it. Right, If Joe Smith has his own
trucking company and he has one truck or two trucks,
well that might be the end of Joe Smith's you know,
trucking career. Obviously it's different when we're talking about these
larger companies, but there's a lot of there's a lot
of scrutiny if a larger company gets you know, hit
(33:07):
with a large verdict. They're obviously going to have to
spend more money on hiring. The hiring pool might get
get smaller. If they had a driver that was driving,
let's say, for three months before a terrible accident occurred, Well,
maybe they're no longer going to hire drivers that have
let's say, just gotten their CDL. Maybe they're going to
(33:27):
want drivers that have a minimum of a year experience
or two experience, so that the number of people that
might be eligible for a job at a particular company
might might decrease. I think it really depends on what
we're you know, what we're sort of talking about in
terms of the impact on the individual drivers.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
I guess, you know.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
The real I guess question that I had was like,
are there any other kind of legal issues that you
deal with as a lawyer for transportation companies that comes
up often outside of like, you know, these sort of
huge liability cases.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
So are there other other legal issues you said that
that come up outside of liability issues? Yeah, like these.
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Sort of like nuclear vertic liability issues.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
They might not be as sexier, they could be smaller,
you know, just just I'm just curious, as a you know,
transportation a lawyer that specializes in transportation.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
You know, is there anything else come across your desk
that you have to deal with?
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Yes, I play in my everyday life. I play psychologists,
I play therapists. Play. We try to play employment attorney.
I mean, look, it's when you when you represent so
we represent primary insurers, we represent you know, self insured
trucking companies, we represent you know, the insurance. It really
(34:54):
depends on who you're representing on a daily basis, and
a lot of what I do is I get cat calls.
We get these catastrophic you know, lass type calls right away,
which means I am boots on the ground from this
second something happens right and that is huge. Suddenly I become,
(35:16):
you know, private investigator. I do become a little bit
you know, psychologist or a therapist. Sometimes to these folks,
you get a driver on the phone, and you're talking
to a driver after a horrific accident has occurred, where
someone has potentially died or someone has suffered serious injuries.
(35:40):
You have to sort of take your lawyer off for
a moment and realize you are talking to somebody that's
been involved in potentially the worst day of his or
her life and So this is kind of what I
deal with on the daily. It's not just thinking about
nuclear verdicts. It's talking to people about how they're gonna
(36:01):
keep on keeping on, how they're gonna get back to
work the next day potentially or the next week, and
how are they going to continue, you know, living living
their lives. And there's been a lot of times where
my family has listened to me on the phone, whether
it's with a school bus driver and a child's been hurt,
whether it's with you know, a local mom and pop
(36:23):
and that person's now worried about losing his or her business,
whether it's a driver for a huge fortune five hundred company,
and again you know, someone's died and they just don't
know how they're gonna move on. I mean, this is
what I do on the daily. I talk to people
about their livelihood. I talk to people about potentially what
(36:46):
we're going to have to deal with two years from now,
three years from now, four years from now, What does
their employment look like? What is you know, what's the
future for the company. Is this going to shutter the company?
What you know is it is it just going to
increase insurance premiums? Do we talk about you know, early
early resolution. Look in the end, I think every good
(37:09):
defense attorney is going to tell you there are a
lot of plaintiffs out there, and our hearts go out
to anyone that is injured or obviously you know, killed
at its worst as a result of a terrible accident
in the transportation industry. But we have to find a way,
(37:30):
no different than when I was a criminal defense attorney
and I had to look beyond, you know, sort of
the moral ramifications of whatever was going on, and then
I had to defend my client to the best of
my ability, because that is what our country and our
system allows for. It's it's really the same here. You
have to be able and I deal with on the
(37:52):
daily the worst day of somebody's life. Whether it is
the person that was hurt, whether it is the other
that was involved because he or she was driving, doesn't
matter whether it was a truck, you know, a box truck,
a van, a school bus, whatever it might be. That
you have to be able to talk to these people
(38:14):
and really hold their hands through the worst time of
their lives.
Speaker 5 (38:19):
Thanks for your time and insight, Robin.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
Absolutely, thank you so much for having me. It's been
a lot of fun for my first time.
Speaker 5 (38:24):
And thank you for tuning in. If you liked the episode,
please subscribe.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
And leave a review.
Speaker 5 (38:29):
We've lined up a number of great guests for the podcast,
so please check back to hear conversations with C suite executives, shippers, regulators,
and decision makers within the freight markets. Also, if you
have any ideas for future episodes, please hit me up
on the Bloomberg terminal or on Twitter at logistics Late. Also,
thank you for talking transports with me and let's keep
those supply chains moving.
Speaker 1 (38:49):
Bye.
Hi everyone, this is Lee clasgaw when We're Talking Transports.
Welcome to Bloomberg Intelligence Talking Transports podcast. I'm your host,
Lee Klaskow, Senior Freight, Transportation and Logistics analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence,
Bloomberg's in house research arm of almost five hundred analysts
and strategists around the globe. Before diving in a little
public service announcement, your support is instrumental to keep bringing
(00:30):
great guests and conversations to you, our listeners, and we
need your support. So please, if you enjoy this podcast,
share it, like it, and leave a comment. Also, if
you have any ideas for a future episode or just
want to talk transports, please hit me up on the
Bloomberg terminal, on LinkedIn or on Twitter at Logistics. Lee.
Now onto our episode I'm very excited to have with
(00:52):
us today. Robin Kazski a partner at the law firm
Locke Gordon. Robin represents corporations including Fortune five hundred companies,
self insured, transportation and insurance companies in various matters. With
nearly twenty years of trial and litigation experience, Robin has
tried multimillion dollar cases to verdict in state and Federal Courts.
(01:14):
Welcome to the Talking Transports podcast.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Robin, Good morning, Lee. Thanks so much for having me
on today.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
So one of the main reasons why I want to
have you on is, you know, to talk about nuclear
verdicts and all the things that have been going on
in transportation. But before we talk about that, why don't
you give us a little more color about Lockgardon and
your practice.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Absolutely so. I've actually been with Lock Gordon at this
point in time since about twenty twenty one. We all
of us really hail from I would say, Big Law, right.
We all come the founding partners and then the attorneys
that have come on kind of since then. We all
come from Big Law. But I think everyone got to
(01:59):
this point point where they decided that was just not
where they wanted to be anymore. We wanted to be
more of a boutique law firm, right, We wanted to
be able to focus and give very individualized attention to
our clients, and so they left Big Law started this
firm in twenty twenty one. I came on shortly thereafter,
(02:22):
and at this point it's really you know, there's about
ten of us attorneys, including the recent addition of two
additional associates in our Ohio office, with another attorney joining
our Pennsylvania office in the next two weeks. So we
are definitely growing, but I don't think that the plan
is for us to just continue to grow into another
(02:43):
one of these larger law firms that all of us
have come from in the past. That said, you know,
the goal here was to work with a group of
people where we really all just wanted to be around
one another. And that might seem hokey, but quite honestly,
it's just it's just true. You have a group of
attorneys all with an incredible amount of experience trying cases,
(03:06):
helping clients, whether it's from the inception of something occurring,
seeing it all the way through to trials and appeals,
and you just have a group that's willing to lean
on each other, you know, in and out on an
everyday basis.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
And I know you've been a defense attorney for a
lot of trucking and transportation names.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Can you just talk about your experience doing that?
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Absolutely? So, I didn't start off as a transportation attorney.
I'm actually a former criminal defense attorney, and that was
kind of where I thought I would be. All this
time going forward, but I would say things changed in
about two thousand and nine or so. I wound up
leaving criminal law and moving on to civil practice, and
(03:53):
I wound up joining a firm in a group that
was handling primarily commercial motor vehicle accidents and representation of
whether it was self insured trucking companies or insurance companies
and their insurance. And you know, I think you quickly
realize that this is a pretty niche area, and it's
(04:15):
kind of this tight knit family. And although there are
transportation attorneys obviously at many firms right throughout the areas
that we all practice in, and I personally am am Pennsylvania,
New York, and New Jersey, but my partners are actually nationwide.
You know, you just realize this is a, like I said,
a close knit community. And so I've been doing this
(04:38):
since about two thousand and nine, representing self insurance and
insurance companies and their insurance in commercial litigation, whether it's
catastrophic loss, whether it's you know, subrogation claims, whether it's
property damage, whether it's you know, anything having to do
with with downtime or any thing that really comes up
(05:01):
in the trucking and transportation industry. You know that said,
we obviously do more at our firm. It's all forms
of commercial litigation. We handle employment law. There's really a
little a little bit of everything.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
And I'm not sure you're going to name names here,
but some of your clients are some of the publicly
traded companies and some I'm assuming small.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Smaller firms absolutely ranges from the mom and pop trucking
company might have one truck, might have two trucks too.
While I won't name names, I will say we do
represent the one of the world's largest package delivery companies
at least by revenue.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
That is okay, all right, great, And so, like I
mentioned earlier, you know, I wanted to have you on
because I know you're you're involved, and you have to
deal with what's called nuclear verdicts. They sound scary and
deadly because nuclears in the name. Can you just talk
tell us, like, you know, what is a nuclear verdict?
(05:57):
How did we get to these types of verdicts and
kind of how do you defend against them?
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Sure? Absolutely so. Look, nuclear verdicts are most commonly known
to all of us in the industry as verdicts that
are in excess of ten million dollars. Now, that said,
you know, interestingly, when I was talking to one of
my partners last week, you know, the term nuclear verdict
can be a little bit misleading, right. Obviously, ten million
(06:25):
dollars is a lot of money, and nuclear certainly indicates
that it is something out of the norm. And that
is the case, right, it is out of the norm
a ten ten million dollar plus verdict. That said, you know,
sometimes context is everything. My husband would laugh. I think
that's like my mantra in life, right, context really is everything.
(06:46):
But I only say that to point out if you
have a case where you know, past medical expenses or
something like that, or twenty two million dollars, well, suddenly
a verdict of ten million, right would be would be
a win. That said, nuclear verdicts as we know them,
being ten million dollar verdicts are higher, are certainly on
(07:07):
the rise. And so you know, I thought, obviously for
everyone listening and my husband being a numbers guy, I
think numbers are just good for everyone, everyone as a
point of comparison. So I pulled some statistics just so
everybody can have a little bit of point of comparison.
So if you look up some of the statistics for
(07:27):
nuclear verdicts. In twenty twenty three, there are about eighty
nine verdicts in access of ten million dollars. There are
twenty seven verdicts in access of one hundred million dollars,
There are eight verdicts in access of five hundred million dollars,
and two verdicts in excess of one billion dollars, otherwise
(07:50):
known as a thermonuclear verdict. That said, if you jump
to twenty twenty four, suddenly the eighty nine verticts in
access of ten million becomes one hundred and thirty nine
verdicts in excess of ten million dollars, which is a
fifty two percent increase from twenty twenty three. Your twenty
(08:13):
seven verdicts in access of one hundred million dollars suddenly
becomes forty nine verdicts in access of one hundred million dollars.
In twenty twenty four, your eight verdicts in excess of
five hundred million dollars becomes forty nine verdicts in access
of five hundred million, and your two verdicts in access
(08:34):
of one billion dollars becomes five verdicts in access of
one billion dollars. So it is very clear that the
numbers are growing, and they are, They're just getting higher
at such an exponential rate. It's crazy. And when you
look at the top states for nuclear vertics, you have
Texas coming in first, you have California coming in second,
(08:57):
and you have my home state of Pennsylvania coming in third.
The only reason why Florida has even been sort of
knocked down to number ten on that list is because
of tort reform. And then I'm happy to give you
some you know, some some examples. I mean, we hear
these numbers and they just sound like, I mean, quite
honestly monopoly numbers.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
You have again my home state and the number one
judicial hellhole, Philadelphia County. Super awesome for US. October twenty
twenty three, there's a product liability case against Mitsubishi Motors
and it is a nearly one billion dollar verdict. I mean,
(09:39):
the these numbers just sound absolutely preposterous. Right. You have
Wabash National. There's a verdict of four hundred and sixty
two million dollars following a two thousand and nineteen crash.
Now it's important when you take some of these really
really large verdicts and you say, well, what was going
(10:00):
What was going on there? Right? What's the breakdown in
terms of compensatory damage in terms of punitive damages? You
want to know what component of that was pain and
suffering versus what component of that are things like medical
expenses or lost wages? You know, I think we see
(10:22):
some of these really big verdicts or like you might
have heard about some of the roundup verdicts that are
coming out of states like Pennsylvania and Georgia, and these
are multi billion dollar verdicts. Now, you hear about these numbers,
what you don't necessarily hear about then, is what happens
after the jury renders that verdict, right, meaning is it
(10:44):
going up on appeal? Does it settle at some point
in time after the appeal? Did a judge do what
is called mold the verdict for one reason or the other.
But you have these numbers that just sound so astronomical,
and I think it's really important for us to sort
of understand. You take these numbers, you understand them, you
(11:08):
hear them, but it's like, what was really going on
in some of these individual cases, right? And how how
did we get there? And I think that when we
are asked all the time. Okay, well, why are nuclear
verdicts growing? Why is this trend continuing to grow? Why
are you know, the numbers going up by you know,
(11:29):
fifty two percent in you know, in twenty twenty four
and compared to twenty twenty three. I don't think that
anyone will tell you that it is tied to any
one particular reason. It is probably due to a confluence
of various different factors. Right. You might just have good
(11:50):
old fashioned good lawyering. I mean, let's give credit where
credit is due. Right, you have plaintiffs attorneys that are
working their halls off to weave creative stories and to
constantly take advantage of what they are seeing their colleagues do.
That is working in one courtroom, maybe not in another.
(12:13):
They are doing a fantastic job of playing on jurors emotions. Right,
The probably the largest motivators in high verdicts are anger
and fear. Okay, well, how do you stoke anger and
fear in the minds of the jurors when the laws
in all the states very clearly say not supposed to
(12:36):
render a verdict just because of sympathy or emotions, or
anger or fear whatnot. Well, but then there have to
be other ways to do it. So plaintiffs lawyers are
using things like the reptile theory, okay, and the reptile
theory is a way for them to make jurors feel
scared it, you know, show them that there is a
(12:59):
danger here that this company or entity is sort of
putting out there to the public. And they almost want
to move away from whatever the individual incident accident is
that maybe was the subject matter of the case, and
they want to make it broader, right, So reptile theory
is a great way for them to think, you should
(13:20):
be scared. This company is dangerous, and this is what
they're doing, and this is why it's dangerous, and this
is why you need you need to punish this company.
You have other things like the use of anchoring, and
for your listeners that don't have any idea what anchoring
might be. This is based on a psychological premise of
(13:43):
giving a number, giving a number to the jury as
early as possible. So you have plaintiffs lawyers that are
doing a fantastic job of putting out numbers, these very
very large numbers to the jury panel, whether it's literally
at the beginning of Wader, which is when they're questioning
(14:06):
the jurors to determine who might sit on a panel
through potentially opening statements, through potentially witness testimony, and then
again in closing. So they're going to give them this
really high number so that when this number is put
out there, whether it's ten million, twenty million, five hundred million,
one billion, the number is there, right, And the idea
(14:29):
is the jurors are going to hear that number. They're
going to hear it early, and they're going to come
back to it when they are actually sitting in deliberations
and now and now talking about what you know, what
to do. You might have the judiciary. Quite honestly, that's
coming into play here. And what do I mean the judiciary, Well,
(14:51):
if you go back and you look at all of
these individual cases where we have these nuclear verdicts, and
I think also just in port or to clarify, you know,
when we talk about nuclear verdicts, we're talking about when
the number of damages, the amount of damages assessed is
(15:12):
so disproportionate to the actual like economic damages. Okay, what
is a person's past medical expenses? What literally the medical
treatment that they have to you know, pay for a
cost or the insurance company or whatnot. What was the
amount of the lost wages? What is the amount of
lost income? Maybe in the future when that number might
(15:35):
be x, But then the amount of damages that a
jury awards for pain and suffering is suddenly ten times
X or twenty times X or fifty times X. Right,
that's more what we're talking about when we see nuclear verdicts.
But going back to if you were to really take
a hard look at those individual cases where a nuclear
(15:58):
verdict came in or or a thermonuclear verdict came in,
you'd want to see what was going on in that
particular case. What was it that very specifically made the
jurors potentially angry or scared? Was it a ruling by
the judiciary, that's where the judiciary might come in, right, evidence?
What evidence came in? Did something come in in that
(16:22):
particular case that really stoked the emotions of the juror
that was potentially very prejudicial, that was over the objections,
let's say, of defense counsel that was really inflammatory. And
if that evidence had not come in, would you really
have been in a situation where that nuclear verdict might
(16:43):
have been rendered or not? So you have things, like
I said, you know, the reptile theory, factoring in really
good storytelling and creativity by the plane of spar you
have rulings potentially by the judges on what evidence you
know comes in or doesn't come in. And then I
would be remiss not to mention advertising. Right. Advertising has
(17:06):
become huge, and it's been a fantastic way I think
for plaintiffs lawyers to really normalize these giant numbers. I mean,
every time we're in the car with our kids and
we're driving down to the Jersey Shore, I can think
of a very specific stretch of highway that we're always
on and it's just billboard, billboard, billboard, billboard, billboard, right,
(17:30):
and they And the best is my kids even know
the names of some of these firms and the advertise
they spend millions of dollars on advertising, right, one one
million dollar verdict, ten million dollar verdict, one hundred million
dollar verdict. Well, in reality us seeing that, right, the
average person, just seeing that on a billboard, it's normalizing
(17:54):
these these giant, crazy astronomical numbers, right. So they and
it almost ties in I think a little bit to
anchoring right there. The plaintiffs lawyers in a courtroom are
prepping the jurors to hear about these very large numbers. Well,
the advertising billboards makes it look like that's the norm.
(18:14):
That is what they are going to do for their clients.
If you hire them, you're going to get a million dollar,
you're going to get a ten million dollar, You're going
to get one hundred million dollar verdict if you use
our law firm. So I think advertising has just become
absolutely huge in probably the last decade or so. And
(18:35):
I don't mean to keep talking, but this is something
I could probably spend six hours on, which I know
we don't have the time for today.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Yeah, and you know, one of the reasons why it's
so important for folks that aren't chucking because it increases
their insurance costs. They have higher claims, and then you
know they're going to need to increase rates to you know,
get a certain return on capital, so they keep on
reinvesting their equipment. So it does have a knock on
effect not only to the trucking companies, but also to
(19:06):
shippers and consumers as well.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
So you know, it has become inflationary. And can you
give maybe an example.
Speaker 4 (19:15):
Of you know one of these verdicts where there was
a true disconnect between the guilt or the liability of
the carrier versus you know what was awarded.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Sure, So, I mean look going back to you know
some of these some of these cases, I mean when
you think about so we have the case even maybe
from October twenty twenty three, okay, which was in Philadelphia County.
It's Mitsubishi Motors nearly a one billion dollar verdict for
(19:50):
a faulty seat belt design. Okay, this is one person
that winds up dying as a result of this accident,
which is off right. It's said, there's no human being
in this world that's going to tell you that that
is not tragic. Right, These are these are accidents. No
one is intending for these things to happen. But that said,
(20:15):
when you look at what the breakdown is of the verdict, okay,
which was nine hundred and seventy six million dollars, the
breakdown of the verdict was one hundred and seventy six
point five million dollars in compensatory damages. And compensatory damages
are supposed to put the person back in the condition
(20:35):
that person was prior to the accident, But then you
have eight hundred million dollars in punitive damages. That is
a wopping discrepancy, right, a wopping discrepancy in those two
in those two numbers, which is why it's obviously now
on appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and they're trying
(20:56):
to move for a new trial. But then when you
have you just you have other cases. You you have
in Georgia there was a Schneider National case forty seven
million dollar verdict for a fatal crash. Again, you have
one individual that passed away as a result of that accident.
Now you know about more notable cases, you know, like
(21:20):
for example, let's say you know the Tracy Morgan case.
And when you I think talk to lay people about well,
why why do these numbers become so big? And how
do you calculate damages? I think the average person doesn't
really understand what goes into our day to day when
we're talking about how to compute damages and well, okay,
why does forty seven million dollars sound so incredibly high
(21:43):
for you know, an accident that might have involved let's
say one one fatality And it's like, well, when you
have somebody like a celebrity, okay, and you and a
plaintiff's attorney can get up in front of a jury
and talk about how high those numbers should be because
this is how much money he was earning, and this
(22:03):
is how much money maybe he can't earn going forward.
That is not the norm, which is why when you
have a case like even the Schneider case in Georgia
with a forty seven million dollar verdict, you have to
ask yourself, well, what was it play there? Right? And
without going through all of the very particular you know,
transcripts from that trial, you're not going to know what
(22:27):
was that? What was that one thing that maybe just
really inflamed the jurors. But I would bet a lot
of money that if you went back to all of
these cases, there was something in particular that made those
juries angry with the company or it made them scared
of the company, and that is why maybe a verdict
(22:49):
was so high. But when you see things like one
hundred and seventy six million in compensatory eight hundred million
in you know, impunitive damages, that that is just there's
a disconnect, right, There's just a disconnect. It's the number
is so disproportionately high in contrast to the amount of
(23:09):
money that we're supposed to be giving an individual to
put him or her back in the place that they
were prior to, let's say, an accident. But then these
verdicts are just you know, they they have such a
larger impact on everyone. It's it's the mom and pop
trucking companies, it's the larger companies. It's the increase in
insurance premiums. It's the cost that then needs to be
(23:32):
passed down to the shippers, which, by the way, guys
ultimately gets passed down to you and me paying for
the items that are being transported by these companies. So
it has such large ramifications for the industry, and there's
a trickle down effect so that it eventually just gets
to you and me, whether we're you know, a lawyer
(23:53):
or we're checking people out at the local supermarket.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
Right.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
You know you mentioned earlier tort reform in Florida.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Are there any other states that are looking to do
something similar to I guess limit the payouts and I
guess I don't know if you if you know anything
about the Florida rule, what did they change?
Speaker 2 (24:13):
So in terms of I think things that maybe can
be done to sort of fight back against some of
these you know, nuclear and thermonuclear verdicts. Obviously, there's tort
reform going on throughout the United States, and certainly some states,
states like Florida, states like Iowa have enacted tort reform.
(24:36):
If I'm not mistaken, I believe Iowa has like a
five million dollar cap on damages, and there are certainly
bills that are working their way through various states, you know,
for the same type of result. Obviously, if there is
a cap on compensatory damages, then that you know, that
(24:56):
would certainly change the way that these numbers are you know, know,
are looking now punitive damages Again, It's it's again state
by state. Some states might have a ratio damages cannot
be more than you know, two times, three times, four times,
and that is something that you know, the push would
be in terms of reform obviously as well. But you know,
(25:19):
in addition to that, there are things that we as
the defense bar just quite simply need to do better
in terms of trying to fight back against these nuclear
verdicts and better represent our clients and just have an
overall better outcome for the industry. As a whole, you
(25:41):
have not only tort reform, but third party litigation funding
has become huge. There are these outside entities that are
actually funding litigation. Litigation is really expensive, you know, hiring
all these experts and witnesses and mock trials and folk
groups and all these different things. They are very, very costly.
(26:03):
So you actually have third parties that are funding litigation
and then taking a piece of a piece of the
pie even when it comes in. And that's huge because
then there are ethical concerns at play too, in terms
of who's calling the shots right, who's talking about strategy
and what you know, impact if any are these third
(26:27):
party litigation companies sources having on the decisions that are
being made between a planeff's attorney and his or her client.
And so you actually have you know, some judges or
some courts that are entering orders that there has to
be automatic disclosure of third party litigation. I think we
(26:47):
as defense lawyers, you know, I think it's known, very
well known, the planeffs attorneys have always worked better together
as truly a team. It has been more of a
team sport. They are constantly evolving and they are teaching
each other what works what doesn't work. We don't do
that as much as the defense bar. And it's understandable why.
(27:10):
In a certain regard, meaning plaintiff's attorneys, it's more like
a one off, right, Okay, you might have a repeat customer,
God forbid, something else bad happens, or they need you.
But generally you might be representing an individual, his or
her family and a state. You're going to do that
one time. Defense attorneys, we're just fighting for clients, right,
(27:32):
we're fighting for repeat business. And so we've known for
a long time that the plaintiff's bar, they put on
these great conferences, they talk about what works well, what
doesn't work well. We have to be better as defense
attorneys at sharing information. I think we have to also
just embrace the uncomfortable more. There's too many times where
(27:56):
you know things are being addressed at a trial, whether
it's you know, going into the gray area in terms
of cross examining or questioning witnesses at trial, or whether
it's what you're talking about during your closing arguments. And
I think sometimes defense attorneys are too afraid to confront
the awkward, the things that are being said by plantiffs Council,
(28:18):
the big numbers that are being put up there by
Plantiffs Council. We teach our children that they have to
get comfortable in the uncomfortable. Well, we have to, you know,
practice as we preach too. We as defense attorneys have
to be willing to live in the uncomfortable too. We
have to do a better job. We have to work together.
(28:39):
We have to share more information in terms of what
is working and what is not working. We have to
confront the big numbers when Planiffs Council. If you're in
a state, when I was talking earlier about anchoring and
putting out numbers early and as frequently as possible to
adjury these big numbers, to normalize them, you have to
(29:01):
understand you're not allowed to do that in every state. Okay,
so even Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a state where the plaintiff's
atorney is not able to get up and say, oh,
here is why you should award this particular plaintiff five
hundred million dollars. You can't do that everywhere. You can
do that some places, but you can't do that everywhere.
(29:22):
In the states where that is able to be done,
we have to put up our own numbers. We have
to explain to the jury early and as often as
possible why that number is astronomical and why our number
is more reasonable. We have to talk about what what
is the true impact of maybe an accident, What was
(29:44):
the true impact on that you know, particular individual's life,
and what does their life look like now? And then
why a number like one hundred thousand dollars or two
hundred thousand dollars or even five hundred thousand dollars that
isn't miss amount of money, a life changing amount of money,
and we have to talk about that because that is
(30:06):
something that the everyday duror who is no different than us,
can understand. We can put things in perspective, what a
bills cost, what does college cost? What does you know
buying a truck cost? And I think we have to
do a better job of being willing to put up
our own numbers and explain to a jury why what
we are saying at the end of the day is
(30:29):
more reasonable than what is coming out of the mouths
of the plaintiff's attorneys. I think, you know, there was
a great suggestion that was made by my partner to
me last week, and that was we need to use
focus groups not these really really expensive mock trials. We
need to use focus groups. Let's grab a group of
twenty people, thirty people, forty people. Let's show them video
(30:51):
if we have it. Let them ask the questions, let
them tell us what are they interested in? What caught
their attention? What do they want to know more? What
is really peaking their interests? What made them upset, what
made them angry? What made them scared to try to
play better on? What do we really need to focus
(31:12):
on in terms of how we are going to speak
to perspective jurors, you know, for this case. And so
I think there really are a number of things in
addition to the tort reform and in addition to third
party litigation funding, you know, the disclosure of information and
living in the uncomfortable and quite honestly, hiring better lawyers
(31:34):
that are just willing to use different tactics instead of
some of the you know, older stuff that we've been
kind of focused on. That clearly has kind of gotten
us to this point because while the Plaineff's attorneys, I
think have been willing to evolve more, I'm not sure
that the defense bar has been keeping pace right.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
And what are are there some legal issues that truckers
must contend with outside of these.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Nuclear verdicts.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Well, if you're talking about individual you know, mom and
pop type shops, or if you're talking it depends on
whether you're talking about you know, actual the person that
was driving. I mean, look, it's you know, you're being
everything's gone over with a fine toothed comb. You might
you know, you might lose lose your job, your mom
(32:24):
and pop might shut down. If you have a big verdict,
come in and that's it, right. I mean, if insurance
covers a verdict, great, If xcess insurance covers a verdict, great,
But if excess insurance doesn't cut it, then the cost
is being passed on to the company itself. The company
is going to be responsible for paying a verdict. That
(32:46):
might be it. Right, If Joe Smith has his own
trucking company and he has one truck or two trucks,
well that might be the end of Joe Smith's you know,
trucking career. Obviously it's different when we're talking about these
larger companies, but there's a lot of there's a lot
of scrutiny if a larger company gets you know, hit
(33:07):
with a large verdict. They're obviously going to have to
spend more money on hiring. The hiring pool might get
get smaller. If they had a driver that was driving,
let's say, for three months before a terrible accident occurred, Well,
maybe they're no longer going to hire drivers that have
let's say, just gotten their CDL. Maybe they're going to
(33:27):
want drivers that have a minimum of a year experience
or two experience, so that the number of people that
might be eligible for a job at a particular company
might might decrease. I think it really depends on what
we're you know, what we're sort of talking about in
terms of the impact on the individual drivers.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
I guess, you know.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
The real I guess question that I had was like,
are there any other kind of legal issues that you
deal with as a lawyer for transportation companies that comes
up often outside of like, you know, these sort of
huge liability cases.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
So are there other other legal issues you said that
that come up outside of liability issues? Yeah, like these.
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Sort of like nuclear vertic liability issues.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
They might not be as sexier, they could be smaller,
you know, just just I'm just curious, as a you know,
transportation a lawyer that specializes in transportation.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
You know, is there anything else come across your desk
that you have to deal with?
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Yes, I play in my everyday life. I play psychologists,
I play therapists. Play. We try to play employment attorney.
I mean, look, it's when you when you represent so
we represent primary insurers, we represent you know, self insured
trucking companies, we represent you know, the insurance. It really
(34:54):
depends on who you're representing on a daily basis, and
a lot of what I do is I get cat calls.
We get these catastrophic you know, lass type calls right away,
which means I am boots on the ground from this
second something happens right and that is huge. Suddenly I become,
(35:16):
you know, private investigator. I do become a little bit
you know, psychologist or a therapist. Sometimes to these folks,
you get a driver on the phone, and you're talking
to a driver after a horrific accident has occurred, where
someone has potentially died or someone has suffered serious injuries.
(35:40):
You have to sort of take your lawyer off for
a moment and realize you are talking to somebody that's
been involved in potentially the worst day of his or
her life and So this is kind of what I
deal with on the daily. It's not just thinking about
nuclear verdicts. It's talking to people about how they're gonna
(36:01):
keep on keeping on, how they're gonna get back to
work the next day potentially or the next week, and
how are they going to continue, you know, living living
their lives. And there's been a lot of times where
my family has listened to me on the phone, whether
it's with a school bus driver and a child's been hurt,
whether it's with you know, a local mom and pop
(36:23):
and that person's now worried about losing his or her business,
whether it's a driver for a huge fortune five hundred company,
and again you know, someone's died and they just don't
know how they're gonna move on. I mean, this is
what I do on the daily. I talk to people
about their livelihood. I talk to people about potentially what
(36:46):
we're going to have to deal with two years from now,
three years from now, four years from now, What does
their employment look like? What is you know, what's the
future for the company. Is this going to shutter the company?
What you know is it is it just going to
increase insurance premiums? Do we talk about you know, early
early resolution. Look in the end, I think every good
(37:09):
defense attorney is going to tell you there are a
lot of plaintiffs out there, and our hearts go out
to anyone that is injured or obviously you know, killed
at its worst as a result of a terrible accident
in the transportation industry. But we have to find a way,
(37:30):
no different than when I was a criminal defense attorney
and I had to look beyond, you know, sort of
the moral ramifications of whatever was going on, and then
I had to defend my client to the best of
my ability, because that is what our country and our
system allows for. It's it's really the same here. You
have to be able and I deal with on the
(37:52):
daily the worst day of somebody's life. Whether it is
the person that was hurt, whether it is the other
that was involved because he or she was driving, doesn't
matter whether it was a truck, you know, a box truck,
a van, a school bus, whatever it might be. That
you have to be able to talk to these people
(38:14):
and really hold their hands through the worst time of
their lives.
Speaker 5 (38:19):
Thanks for your time and insight, Robin.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
Absolutely, thank you so much for having me. It's been
a lot of fun for my first time.
Speaker 5 (38:24):
And thank you for tuning in. If you liked the episode,
please subscribe.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
And leave a review.
Speaker 5 (38:29):
We've lined up a number of great guests for the podcast,
so please check back to hear conversations with C suite executives, shippers, regulators,
and decision makers within the freight markets. Also, if you
have any ideas for future episodes, please hit me up
on the Bloomberg terminal or on Twitter at logistics Late. Also,
thank you for talking transports with me and let's keep
those supply chains moving.
Speaker 1 (38:49):
Bye.
Host
Lee Klaskow
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.