BENTON – Rebecca Anderson of Arkansas can’t escape litigation over a fiery fatal double accident she started, Senior U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert ruled on May 5.
He denied summary judgment on her claim that the insurer of her parents relieved her liability by paying the $25,000 limit in their policy.
Gilbert found the original defendant in the suit, Daimler Trucks, was entitled to a determination of the proportion of liability.
Daimler Trucks filed a counterclaim against Anderson after the estate of Illinois truck driver Victor Morris sued Daimler Trucks.
Attorney Lanny Darr of Alton, representing Morris’s son Kaleb as estate administrator, seeks to hold Daimler Trucks liable for design defects.
The accident happened in March 2018, on U.S. Highway 67 in Arkansas.
According to a state police report, Anderson drove left of center and the Kia she drove struck the left front of a Freightliner with Morris at the wheel.
Morris survived, but the impact disabled his steering and momentum carried his cab across the line and into the driver’s door of a truck behind Anderson.
Both truckers survived the second impact, but diesel fuel from one truck or both ignited and both trucks caught fire.
Morris couldn’t get out.
State police captain Keith Eremea interviewed survivors, read a witness statement, and found Anderson at fault.
He wrote that she told him in a telephone interview that she had been texting but didn’t remember doing it when the accident happened.
“She told me she looked down at her speedometer then she had a crash,” he wrote.
In August 2018, Southern Farm Casualty paid the estate $25,000 in exchange for releasing Anderson and her parents from liability.
The agreement provided that interpretation of its terms and conditions would be construed according to Illinois law.
Darr filed a wrongful death suit against Daimler Trucks as manufacturer of both trucks in March 2020.
He claimed Daimler Trucks should have provided egress portals for emergencies, protection devices for steering components, and shields for fuel tanks.
Daimler Trucks retained Michael Kleffner of Kansas City, Mo., and he sued Anderson for contribution last August.
He claimed she solely caused the accident and the breach of her duty of reasonable care was the proximate cause of Morris’s injuries and death.
Anderson retained Paul Festenstein of Chicago, who moved for summary judgment.
He claimed she settled in good faith and Illinois law required nothing more.
In response, Kleffner argued for application of Arkansas law.
He claimed an Arkansas settlement relieves a party from contribution only if it reduces liability for a party that didn’t settle in proportion to responsibility.
He claimed Anderson and the estate didn’t provide for a reduction in the potential liability of Daimler Trucks as was necessary to extinguish contribution liability.
“Further, under Arkansas law, the jury is required to consider Ms. Anderson’s fault irrespective of any settlement,” he wrote.
He claimed Arkansas law ensures that defendants are not held responsible for the conduct of others.
In case Gilbert should apply Illinois law, Kleffner claimed a genuine dispute would exist whether the $25,000 settlement was made in good faith.
He claimed Southern Farm paid $25,000 to the other trucker, $15,000 to Morris’s employer, $15,000 to the other driver’s employer, and $5,000 to a clinic.
He claimed Anderson wasn’t a party to those settlements.
Gilbert applied Arkansas law, finding the accident occurred there, two of the three drivers were Arkansas citizens, and Arkansas residents owned and operated two of the three vehicles.
“It is true that Morris was an Illinois citizen, he was driving a truck that had passed in the stream of commerce through Illinois, and his connection with the truck centered on his employment in Illinois,” he wrote.
“However, Arkansas has a far stronger connection with this dispute and the parties generally.”
He wrote that since the choice was clear, he wouldn’t dally to determine whether Illinois law would reach the same result.
He observed in a footnote that the competing contribution laws “embody vastly different inquiries and public policy choices.”
He has set trial to start next February.