Arbitration agreements appear in many commercial trucking relationships, including contracts between motor carriers and their drivers, freight brokers and carriers, and shippers and carriers. Whether such an agreement is enforced in a dispute connected to a Georgia trucking accident depends on which law governs the agreement, what the agreement says, and who the parties to the dispute are. Arbitration is a creature of contract, so the analysis usually begins with whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and whether the dispute falls within it.
Two Bodies of Arbitration Law
Two separate arbitration statutes can apply to a trucking-related contract. The Georgia Arbitration Code, found at O.C.G.A. 9-9-1 and following, governs many arbitrations involving Georgia parties and local commercial relationships. The Federal Arbitration Act, codified at 9 U.S.C. 1 and following, governs arbitration agreements in contracts that involve interstate commerce.
Because commercial trucking very often involves the movement of goods across state lines, contracts in this industry frequently touch interstate commerce, and the Federal Arbitration Act commonly applies. The United States Supreme Court has long read the Federal Arbitration Act’s reach broadly, applying it to contracts that have even a modest connection to interstate commerce. When the federal act applies, it generally requires courts to enforce valid arbitration agreements according to their terms, and it can preempt state rules that single out arbitration agreements for disfavored treatment.
The Transportation Worker Exemption
There is an important limitation in the Federal Arbitration Act itself. Section 1 of the act exempts from its coverage the employment contracts of seamen, railroad employees, and any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. This third category is commonly called the transportation worker exemption.
In Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2024, the Court held that the transportation worker exemption does not require the worker to be employed in the transportation industry. What matters is the nature of the work itself. The Court explained that transportation workers are connected by what they do, not by whom they work for, and that the exemption applies to workers actively engaged in transporting goods across borders through the channels of interstate commerce.
Truck drivers who haul goods across state lines generally fall within this exemption. The practical effect is that an arbitration clause in the employment contract of an interstate truck driver may not be enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, because the act by its terms does not cover that class of worker. The exemption applies to contracts of employment and does not, by itself, exempt commercial contracts between businesses such as broker-carrier or shipper-carrier agreements.
When State Law Governs Instead
If a trucking contract does not involve interstate commerce, or if the federal act’s exemption removes a worker’s employment contract from federal coverage, the Georgia Arbitration Code may govern the question of enforceability. The Georgia code sets out its own requirements for a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, including formal requirements for certain types of agreements. Georgia courts have construed some of these requirements strictly, for example requirements that parties initial an arbitration clause in particular kinds of contracts. Parties may also agree by contract to be governed by Georgia arbitration law, and that choice is generally respected so long as it does not conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act where the federal act applies.
Personal Injury Claims by Third Parties
A significant point in the trucking accident context is the difference between disputes among parties to a contract and claims brought by people who never signed any agreement. A member of the public injured in a collision with a commercial truck is typically a stranger to any contract between the carrier, its driver, a broker, or a shipper. As a general matter, a person cannot be forced into arbitration based on an agreement that person never entered. An injured motorist or pedestrian who sues a trucking company for negligence is ordinarily not bound by arbitration clauses contained in the company’s internal commercial or employment contracts.
Arbitration agreements therefore tend to affect the contracting parties themselves. A dispute between a carrier and a driver over wages or termination, or a dispute between a broker and a carrier over a freight contract, is more likely to be subject to an arbitration clause than a personal injury claim brought by an outside accident victim.
How a Court Decides Enforceability
When a party asks a court to compel arbitration, the court generally examines several questions. It considers whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, whether the particular dispute falls within the scope of that agreement, and whether any statutory exemption or defense applies. Ordinary contract defenses, such as fraud, unconscionability, or lack of mutual assent, can be raised against an arbitration agreement to the same extent they could be raised against any contract. The party resisting arbitration bears the burden of showing why the agreement should not be enforced once a valid agreement is shown.
Summary
Arbitration agreements in Georgia trucking contracts can be enforced, but the outcome depends on context. Commercial agreements connected to interstate commerce are commonly governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and are generally enforceable according to their terms. Employment contracts of interstate truck drivers may fall outside the federal act under the transportation worker exemption recognized in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries. The Georgia Arbitration Code supplies the governing rules in other situations. And injured members of the public who never signed an arbitration agreement are generally not bound by clauses contained in a trucking company’s contracts with its drivers, brokers, or shippers.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how Georgia law works as a matter of public legal education, and it does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular course of action. Reading this article, or contacting the website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author.
The law changes over time. Statutes, regulations, court rules, and judicial decisions discussed here may have been amended, repealed, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication, and citations to specific code sections or cases reflect the law only as it was understood when this article was written. The application of any legal principle also depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of an individual matter, and outcomes vary from case to case.
For these reasons, no one should rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed Georgia attorney who can review the particular facts involved. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken based on this content.