A legal dispute over allegedly defective trailers that were linked to a series of fires is expanding, with trailer manufacturer Fruehauf now seeking to bring several component manufacturers and suppliers into the case.
The lawsuit, involving Indiana-based Summitt Leasing and Summitt Trucking against Fruehauf, was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky late last year. An amended complaint followed shortly afterward.
Summitt operates both as a carrier and as a provider of leased trailers. Its complaint alleges that serious defects in trailers supplied by Fruehauf led to dangerous brake problems, excessive temperatures and, ultimately, multiple fires.
A growing list of companies involved
Last week, Fruehauf filed a motion seeking to add SAF-Holland Inc., Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC and Hoosier Trailer Acquisition Corp. as defendants through a third-party complaint.
According to Fruehauf, SAF-Holland and Bendix manufactured components installed on the trailers that are now at the center of the dispute. Summitt alleges that failures involving those components may have contributed to the fires.
Hoosier Trailer Acquisition Corp., meanwhile, acted as a trailer dealer. It supplied the Fruehauf-manufactured trailers to Pace Transportation Services, which subsequently transferred the trailers to Summitt.
Pace was already named as a defendant in the original lawsuit alongside Fruehauf.
Lexington Insurance Company, which counts Fruehauf among its clients, is also participating in the case as an intervening plaintiff alongside Summitt.
In its motion, Fruehauf argued that it should not bear responsibility for alleged defects involving parts it did not manufacture.
“Fruehauf did not manufacture either of the component parts that are the subject of this dispute,” the company said in its request to file a third-party complaint. “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.”
Fruehauf also stated that it had contracted directly with Hoosier for the purchase of the trailers and communicated any changes involving component parts to the company.
Hoosier subsequently sold the trailers to Pace Transportation Services, which is described in Summitt’s original complaint as operating a trailer sales and service business. Summitt is one of Pace’s customers.
If the court approves Fruehauf’s request to expand the list of defendants, the case will bring together several companies involved in the manufacturing and distribution of critical trailer components. The move also suggests that the possibility of an out-of-court settlement may be increasingly remote, at least for the time being.
A dispute dating back four years
The events leading to the lawsuit began in September 2022, according to Summitt’s filing, when the company agreed to purchase 100 trailers from Fruehauf.
Summitt was reportedly so determined to acquire those trailers that it accepted being placed on a waiting list rather than purchasing similar models from competing 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 stated. “Summitt was also familiar with these trailers as they have purchased and used them in the past.”
According to the complaint, Fruehauf’s role extended across three areas: the company engineered, designed and assembled the trailers, including their air and braking systems.
The lawsuit identifies several component suppliers involved in the production of the trailers, although not all of them were named as defendants in the original case.
Summitt says the trailers were supposed to be equipped with a Hendrickson 40K suspension and a Tiremaax Pro Tire Inflation System. Instead, the company alleges it received trailers fitted with substitute components manufactured by SAF-Holland and Bendix.
Summitt had also expected the trailers to use a Wabco ABS system.
However, the company says serious problems began appearing shortly after the trailers entered service.
“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.
The complaint also alleges that maintenance costs associated with brakes and tires became exceptionally high.
In September 2023, one of the trailers caught fire while hauling a customer’s load, according to Summitt. The company says that incident was followed by what it described as chronic cases of the trailer braking system engaging on its own while the vehicle was in transit.
Blame spreads across the supply chain
Summitt says discussions with Fruehauf produced little progress.
According to the lawsuit, Fruehauf blamed other parties for the problems, including SAF-Holland, Bendix and even Summitt itself.
Inspections conducted by several companies involved in the supply chain reportedly found various components in different stages of deterioration.
The central issue, however, is whether the way those components were installed contributed to that deterioration.
Summitt’s lawsuit does not accuse the component manufacturers of supplying Fruehauf with defective products, and they were not named as defendants when the case was initially filed.
It is Fruehauf that is now seeking to bring those companies into the litigation.
Summitt’s complaint refers to an analysis conducted by outside consulting firm Wolf Technical Services. According to the lawsuit, the firm’s report concluded 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 manufacturer, Bendix.”
Summitt maintains that it was not experiencing similar problems with its other trailers, despite claims from Bendix and Fruehauf that the carrier itself may have contributed to the issues.
By late 2024, Summitt says Fruehauf had finally acknowledged that the trailers were defective, although the company allegedly continued to limit the extent of its responsibility.
According to the lawsuit, “Fruehauf, while limiting its acknowledgment and avoiding full accountability, finally conceded that the trailers it sold to Summitt were defective.”
An email sent to Fruehauf attorneys listed in court documents had not received a response by the time of publication.
More than 20 reported fires
Following Fruehauf’s instructions, Summitt began carrying out repairs using replacement parts supplied by the trailer manufacturer.
Summitt claims that Fruehauf did not compensate the company for the repair work.
Despite those efforts, the fires reportedly continued.
The lawsuit refers to more than 20 fires involving the trailers and cites two additional blazes that occurred after the repair program had already begun.
Repair work is still ongoing, but Summitt argues that the absence of a permanent solution continues to expose the company to financial losses and potential liability.
“Without a permanent solution, Summitt continues to incur losses and face liability for the defective Trailers,” the lawsuit said.
The complaint further states that the trailers remain inadequately repaired and unsafe for their intended purpose.
“The safety of these Trailers impacts not only the cargo, but the safety of the driver, and other individuals travelling on the roadway,” the lawsuit added.
Fruehauf’s return to U.S. manufacturing
The Fruehauf name has a long and complex history in the U.S. trailer industry.
The original Fruehauf entered bankruptcy during the 1990s, with its U.S. assets eventually sold to Wabash National.
An international company continued operating under the Fruehauf name and later returned to U.S. trailer manufacturing.
In 2022, Fruehauf resumed manufacturing operations in the United States with a facility in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
The current lawsuit now threatens to become a broader legal battle involving the trailer manufacturer, component suppliers, dealers and other companies connected to the supply chain behind the trailers at the center of the alleged fires.
