Trailer builder Fruehauf wants parts makers as co-defendants in suit

A dispute over allegations of defective work that resulted in trailers catching fire now is threatening to drag in the manufacturers of some of those components that may be at the root of the incidents. The case of Indiana-based Summitt Leasing and Summitt Trucking vs. Fruehauf was first filed in the U. S.

District Court for the Western district of Kentucky at the end of last year, with an amended complaint filed soon after. Summitt is a carrier as well as a supplier of leased trailers. Long cast of characters Last week, Fruehauf, a manufacturer of trailers, moved to bring in as defendants SAF-Holland Inc.

, Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC and Hoosier Trailer Acquisition Corp. Two of those companies, SAF-Holland and Bendix, manufactured components in the trailers that van leasing company Summitt says failed in several different ways, which may have led to the fires.

Hoosier is a trailer dealer that supplied the Fruehauf-manufactured trailer to Pace Transportation Services, which then moved the trailers to Summitt. Pace already was a defendant in the original case along with Fruehauf. Lexington Insurance Company, which has Fruehauf as a client, is an intervening plaintiff in the case alongside Summitt.

Fruehauf, in the motion to file a “third-party complaint,” said it “did not manufacture either of the component parts that are the subject of this dispute. Fruehauf did nothing more than install these component parts onto the trailers.

Any liability for an alleged defective component part belongs to the manufacturer or seller of the individual component parts—not Fruehauf.” The Fruehauf request for a widened group of defendants says Fruehauf had contracted “directly” with Hoosier for the latter to buy the trailers “and communicated any component part changes to Hoosier.”

Hoosier then sold the trailers to Pace, which is described in the initial Summitt lawsuit as operating a trailer sales and service business. Summitt is a customer of Pace. If the request is granted by the court to widen the list of defendants, it will be a case involving several companies that manufacture key parts of a trailer.

It also suggests that any efforts toward an out-of-court settlement are off the table, at least for now. Going back four years The series of developments that led to the lawsuit starts in September 2022, according to the Summitt filing, when it agreed to buy 100 trailers from Fruehauf.

It wanted those trailers so much, according to a recap of the case’s history, that it went on to a waitlist “rather than (buying) similar models from other sellers.” “Summitt purchased the Trailers in reliance on Fruehauf’s advertising, expecting them to deliver lower operating costs per mile and improved fuel efficiency,” the lawsuit said.

“Summitt was also familiar with these trailers as they have purchased and used them in the past.” The role of Fruehauf was three-fold, the lawsuit says: it “engineered, designed and assembled” the trailers. That included the air and braking systems. The lawsuit lists several component suppliers used by Fruehauf to build the trailer.

But not all are defendants. Specifically, Summit’s lawsuit says the trailers were to be equipped with a Hendrickson 40K suspension and a Tiremaax Pro Tire Inflation System. But instead they received trailers with substitute components manufactured by SAF Holland and Bendix. Additionally, Summitt had expected a Wabco ABS System (NYSE: WAB) would be used.

“Unlike typically manufactured and purchased trailers, these trailers quickly began to exhibit significant issues: the brakes engaged without being prompted; the efficiency per mile plummeted; and the wheel ends of the Trailer would reach dangerous temperatures,” the lawsuit said. “Also, the maintenance costs for brakes and tires were extreme.”

A trailer hauling a load for a customer caught fire in September 2023, the Summitt lawsuit says. That was followed, Summitt adds, by “chronic issues involving self-engagement of the Trailer’s brake system while in transit.”

Lots of blame flying around Discussions between Summitt and Fruehauf resulted in little action, but the lawsuit says Fruehauf “blamed other parties, including SAF Holland, Bendix and even Summitt.” Inspections done by several of the companies involved in the supply chain did find components in various states of deterioration, the lawsuit says.

But what is at issue is their installation that may have led to that deterioration. Summit, in its lawsuit, does not charge the component manufacturers with providing Fruehauf with faulty products and they were not initial defendants. It is Fruehauf that is now seeking to bring them in.

The Summitt lawsuit cites a report from an outside consulting company, Wolf Technical Services, that said in its report to the carrier that “based upon the available evidence, that Fruehauf integrated the Bendix R-12P Pilot Relay Valve into the Trailer’s pneumatic brake circuit in a manner inconsistent with the recommendations of the manu