Illinois Supreme Court Ends Uber's Arbitration Defense in Wrongful-Death Cases
On September 24, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court handed down Geller v. Uber Technologies, No. 132066, a ruling that removes one of rideshare companies' most reliable procedural weapons in personal-injury litigation. The court held that a wrongful-death survivor cannot be compelled to arbitrate under an account agreement signed by the deceased rider. The Geller estate, represented by Clifford Law Offices of Chicago, argued that the arbitration clause was personal to the account holder and could not be enforced against third-party wrongful-death claimants.
The practical consequence is significant. Illinois courts had previously seen rideshare defendants move to compel arbitration in wrongful-death matters by pointing to the decedent's app-acceptance terms. That avenue is now closed. The ruling extends to all stages of a rideshare trip, meaning protections apply from app request through drop-off, not merely during active transit. Plaintiff counsel in federal circuits with overlapping factual patterns should anticipate this decision being cited in opposition to mandatory arbitration motions, particularly in circuits where wrongful-death standing is interpreted broadly.
Firms handling rideshare cases outside Illinois should track whether their jurisdiction distinguishes between a decedent's contractual rights and a survivor's independent statutory claim. The answer to that question now has one more data point.
Counsel litigating rideshare wrongful-death claims in Illinois, and in circuits where Geller will be cited, should move to preserve jury trial rights immediately upon filing rather than waiting for a compel motion.
New York's 50% Fault Bar Reshapes the Nation's Largest Auto-PI Market
New York CPLR § 1411(b), effective May 26, 2026, replaced pure comparative fault with a 50% modified bar for motor vehicle cases. A plaintiff found more than 50% at fault recovers nothing for pain and suffering. The amendment simultaneously eliminated the 90/180-day serious-injury threshold from Insurance Law § 5102(d), a category that had generated a large share of lower-value claims. These two changes together represent the most significant structural shift in New York auto-PI practice in decades.
The intake calculus has shifted immediately. Firms auditing their docket report screening out high-shared-fault referrals: rear-end collisions where the plaintiff changed lanes without signaling, pedestrian knockdowns where the plaintiff crossed against a signal, cases that previously survived under pure comparative fault but now face zero recovery on noneconomic damages. Several carriers have publicly forecast double-digit premium reductions for New York personal auto policies over a 24-month horizon, an indirect signal that lien recovery on NY auto matters may compress as settlement economics shift.
The elimination of the 90/180-day threshold removes a subset of claims, but it also removes a defense argument that had consumed substantial litigation resources. For plaintiffs with objective serious injuries, the elimination of that threshold is a net positive. For the high-shared-fault segment, the bar is categorical.
New York PI firms should revise intake screening criteria to account for the 50% bar before accepting referrals; shared-fault cases that cleared the pure comparative standard no longer survive to trial on noneconomic damages.
Expanded EDR Data Windows: 20 Seconds That Can Define a Case
The NHTSA final event data recorder rule, effective June 17, 2026, extended pre-crash data capture from 5 seconds at 2 Hz to 20 seconds at 10 Hz. The expanded window records sustained speeding, delayed braking, and erratic steering that occurred well before impact, data that was previously beyond the recorder's capture window. In a standard 5-second window, a driver who braked 8 seconds before impact left no record. Under the new rule, that same driver's behavior is preserved in detail.
In New York, the expanded EDR window interacts directly with the new fault bar. Plaintiff counsel can now use a CPLR Article 31 demand or a subpoena to a telematics provider to surface 20 seconds of pre-crash vehicle data. If that data shows the defendant speeding, distracted, or failing to brake, the fault calculus at trial shifts before a single live witness testifies. Defense counsel will use the same window to document plaintiff-side erratic maneuvers, reinforcing why intake screening under the new fault bar matters.
For medical providers under letters of protection or lien agreements, the EDR rule matters indirectly: clearer liability cases tend to settle at higher values, and cases with strong EDR evidence tying fault to the defendant are less likely to face the 50% bar cutoff.
A subpoena or CPLR Art. 31 demand for EDR data should be issued at the start of discovery in any New York motor vehicle case where fault will be contested; the 20-second window may be the most efficient path to establishing comparative fault before deposition.
California's TNC Coverage Cap and the UM/UIM Gap
California SB 371, effective January 1, 2026, capped TNC UM/UIM coverage during Period 3 at $60,000 per person and $300,000 per accident when an uninsured or underinsured third driver is at fault. Period 3 covers the interval when a passenger is in the vehicle. The previous limits were higher, and the practical result is that a seriously injured rideshare passenger in California whose harm was caused by an underinsured third driver is limited to $60,000 from the TNC's UM/UIM policy before turning to personal auto coverage.
Plaintiff counsel in California should be advising clients with active rideshare use to carry personal UM/UIM coverage in excess of the SB 371 cap. For cases already in litigation, the gap between the TNC cap and actual economic damages is the critical number. If the plaintiff's personal auto policy excludes UM/UIM coverage while occupying a TNC vehicle, which is a common exclusion, the $60,000 cap may be the ceiling.
California PI counsel handling TNC cases should verify whether the plaintiff's personal auto policy excludes UM/UIM coverage during rideshare occupancy before relying on any coverage above the SB 371 per-person cap.
FMCSA Rule Changes: New Negligent-Hiring Levers in Trucking Cases
Two FMCSA developments in 2026 have moved in opposite directions, and plaintiff trucking counsel need to track both. The non-domiciled CDL final rule, effective March 16, 2026, restricted non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa holders. Carriers that place a driver on the road without verifying CDL compliance under the new rule face constructive-notice arguments at trial: if the carrier could have identified the licensing deficiency through a standard pre-hire screen, the failure to do so supports a negligent-entrustment theory.
Running counter to that is the deregulatory rollback effective July 22, 2026, which removed the CDL self-reporting requirement, the in-cab ELD manual mandate, and the automatic inspection-report return. The removal of these requirements does not eliminate the underlying safety duty; it eliminates a paper trail. Plaintiff counsel in trucking cases should anticipate defense arguments that the absence of a self-report means no violation occurred. The counter-argument is that the obligation to maintain a safe driver was never statutory; it was always a common-law duty, and the absence of a regulatory prompt does not extinguish it.
FMCSA's 2026 consolidation of approximately 950 CSA violation codes into roughly 116 categories, with heavier weighting on recent violations and peer-cohort comparisons, has made the agency's carrier safety database more accessible for negligent-entrustment arguments. A carrier's CSA score is now more directly tied to recent conduct.
In any commercial trucking case filed after March 2026, verify CDL compliance against the non-domiciled rule as part of initial discovery; a licensing deficiency the carrier failed to catch on pre-hire screening is a standalone negligent-entrustment theory.
Ford F-150 Recall and the Crashworthiness Exposure Window
NHTSA logged more than 300 vehicle safety recalls in 2026. Ford issued a recall for the 2026 F-150 covering incorrect rear axle tail bearings, a defect that NHTSA identified as creating risk of rear wheel lock-up, driveshaft separation, or vehicle rollaway. Owner notification letters were expected on or around September 21, 2026. Two separate Ford recalls this year carry do-not-drive warnings, a designation NHTSA uses when the agency determines that operating the vehicle creates an immediate risk of crash or injury.
For plaintiff auto counsel, recall data is a discovery lever in crashworthiness claims. A vehicle involved in an accident that had an open recall at the time of the crash, particularly one with a do-not-drive designation, raises the question of whether the defect contributed to the collision mechanics or injury severity. That theory requires expert support, but the existence of the recall is public record and admissible as notice of a known defect.
For medical providers evaluating whether to extend letters of protection on auto cases involving recalled vehicles, the presence of a manufacturer as a potential deep-pocket defendant affects lien recovery timelines. Product liability defendants typically resolve more slowly than auto-only matters, but the settlement ceiling is higher.
The open question for Ford F-150 crashworthiness cases filed in the next 90 days is whether plaintiff counsel can establish that the rear axle bearing defect was a cause-in-fact of wheel behavior during the subject accident, an inquiry that will require early engagement with accident reconstruction experts.