A nearly two-year lawsuit filed by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. and two owner-operators against Oklahoma City-based Rocor has come to naught.

According to Rocor, U.S. District Judge Tim Leonard ruled in favor of Rocor on all claims remaining in the case. On the eve of the Aug. 27 trial, OOIDA dropped its request for monetary damages, but still sought injunctive and declaratory relief, which it did not get.
The case was filed as a class action in October 1998, by OOIDA and Gary Jones, an owner-operator unhappy with Rocor's handling of the workers' compensation claim that Jones incurred on his first trip as an owner-operator under lease to Rocor. OOIDA alleged that Rocor's lease provisions regarding its self-funded workers' compensation program did not comply with federal truth-in-leasing regulations.
Don Holly, the second owner-operator plaintiff and the plaintiffs' sole witness at trial, contended he should not have been forced to pay for workers' compensation coverage for the employees he hired to drive the truck which Holly leased to Rocor.
In July 2000, Judge Leonard entered an "interlocutory" order finding that plaintiffs had proved technical violations of the federal regulations.
At the trial, according to Rocor, the judge refused to enter a final judgment on the interlocutory order due to the failure of the plaintiffs to demonstrate entitlement to any relief. According to OOIDA's counsel, this lack of evidence was due to the court's denial of class certification in July 2001, which drastically changed the complexion of the case.
Rocor CEO William M. Wiley III was pleased with the ruling, noting that ROCOR believed the case to be "an attempt by OOIDA to unnecessarily and unreasonably interfere with the excellent relations Rocor enjoys with its owner-operators," according to a company release.
"Rocor's workers' compensation program has provided owner-operators valuable protection at a reasonable cost since 1982," Wiley said. Wiley also indicated that Rocor intends to seek costs and attorney fees against the plaintiffs.