A Louisiana appeals court has revived a major insurance fraud case involving alleged staged trucking accidents and millions in disputed claims.
On October 9, 2025, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, issued a decision reversing a lower court’s dismissal of a petition to annul judgments in a case that has drawn attention from insurance professionals.
The dispute centers on a July 17, 2018, collision in New Orleans between a Ford Mustang, driven by Anthony T. Straughter and carrying Deron Alexander and Russell Bickham, and an 18-wheeler owned by The Trinity System, Inc., operated by Aaron Matthew White.
The plaintiffs – Straughter, Alexander, and Bickham – filed suit against White, Trinity, and Wilshire Insurance Company, alleging White was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
After a jury awarded $985,000 to Straughter and $2,390,000 to Alexander, the defendants sought to annul the final judgment, two consent judgments, and a settlement agreement, arguing that the accident was staged as part of a broader scheme to defraud insurers.
The defendants cited newly discovered evidence, including phone records and connections to Cornelius Garrison, who was indicted in a federal investigation known as “Operation Sideswipe,” which targeted staged motor vehicle accidents involving commercial vehicles in Orleans Parish.
The petition to annul alleged that the plaintiffs concealed relevant telephone numbers during discovery, which were later found in medical records and the accident report, and that these numbers appeared in Garrison’s phone records on the day of the accident.
The trial court dismissed the petition to annul, finding that the defendants had knowledge of facts suggesting fraud as early as May 2021, based on their own discovery responses referencing similarities to accidents under federal investigation. The court ruled that the defendants failed to file their petition within the one-year peremptive period required by Louisiana law.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion regarding when the peremptive period began. The appellate court found that the defendants did not have sufficient knowledge to trigger the one-year period until March 2023, when they obtained evidence of the plaintiffs’ connections to Garrison and the alleged scheme. The court emphasized that mere suspicion is not enough to start the clock; the peremptive period begins when there is knowledge of facts sufficient to prompt further inquiry. The court concluded that the defendants’ petition to annul was timely filed within one year of discovering the alleged fraud.
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits of the petition to annul, and lifted the stay that had previously been imposed.
For insurance professionals, particularly those involved in commercial auto claims and litigation, this case underscores the importance of thorough investigation and timely action when fraud is suspected. The decision does not discuss specific insurance policy clauses, nor does it make findings as to whether fraud actually occurred. Instead, it addresses the procedural question of whether the defendants’ petition to annul was timely.
The case will now return to the trial court for a determination on the merits of the fraud allegations.
