American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
559 F.3d 1046 | Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 2009
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
The trucking industry challenged Los Angeles and Long Beach port rules requiring drayage trucking companies to sign concession agreements with strict terms. The court found that many of these agreement provisions—including insurance and other requirements—were not actually about safety, so they likely violated federal law that prevents cities from regulating trucking rates, routes, and services. The court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the case back, meaning the ports' rules face serious legal obstacles.
Key Takeaways
- •If a government agency claims rules are for 'safety' but they actually control pricing, routes, or service terms, federal law may block them—even if they're in a concession agreement
- •Insurance requirements and other contract terms must genuinely relate to safety; if they're really about controlling business operations, they can be preempted by federal trucking law
- •Challenge rules early through preliminary injunction motions; courts will examine whether claimed safety justifications are real or just cover for regulating the trucking business
Many provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.
Frequently Asked Question
Can a city require insurance and other terms in a concession agreement if it claims they're for safety?
Not if those requirements actually regulate pricing, routes, or services instead of genuinely protecting safety. Federal law preempts such rules. Courts will look past the stated safety reason to examine whether the requirements are truly safety-focused or are really about controlling the trucking business.
Related Cases
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison
A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.
Continental Casualty Co. v. Rapid-American Corp.
An insurer's duty to defend under a CGL policy is triggered when complaints allege covered occurrences, even if latent injuries from asbestos exposure manifest after the policy period, and pollution exclusions do not apply to occupational asbestos inhalation injuries.