Philadelphia partners Dylan M. Marck and Salvatore A. Clemente secured a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirming summary judgment by the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, in favor of Wilson Elser’s client, a Canadian trucking broker. The case involved a collision that occurred when a tractor-trailer struck a vehicle that was disabled by a collision with a deer, ultimately resulting in the deaths of two minors. In addition to the firm’s broker client, the plaintiff also brought claims against a Canadian motor carrier and an American shipper.

The plaintiff implemented an escalating settlement demand strategy under which a demand of $17.5 million automatically increased by $250,0000 per month, bringing the demand to $25.5 million at the time of the Third Circuit’s decision. Rather than relying on the tenuous Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preemption theory recently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC et al., Dylan and Sal argued that the record contained no evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claims that our broker client functioned as a motor carrier, participated in a joint venture with the motor carrier and shipper, was vicariously liable for the acts of the actual motor carrier and driver, or that it negligently selected, hired, retained, and/or entrusted the motor carrier and driver. The plaintiff also filed competing partial motions for summary judgment. After extensive and protracted briefing, Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann granted partial summary judgment in favor of the broker, reserving decision on the remaining negligent entrustment claim pending resolution of Daubert motions. Following the Daubert briefing, Chief Judge Brann excluded a substantial majority of the plaintiff’s direct negligence expert’s opinions and, on February 1, 2024, entered full summary judgment in favor of Wilson Elser’s broker client. Following the plaintiff’s appeal to the Third Circuit, Senior Judge McKee authored the panel’s May 26, 2026, opinion, unanimously affirming the District Court’s grant of full summary judgment.