Hurricane Express, the West Siloam Springs, Oklahoma trucking company, has been named in a string of lawsuits over roughly three decades, most of them tied to how it classifies and pays the drivers who lease trucks through its owner-operator program. The company lost two Arkansas rulings on driver classification, settled a federal wage class action in 2023, defended a Maryland trade secrets case, and in 2026 became the plaintiff in a defamation suit it filed in Tennessee.
Two Arkansas Rulings That the Drivers Were Employees
The oldest thread in the company’s legal history is the question of whether its drivers are employees or independent contractors. Hurricane Express has lost that question twice.
In 1998, the Arkansas Court of Appeals decided Steinert v. Director, Arkansas Employment Security Department. The Arkansas Board of Review had assessed $31,339.22 in unemployment-insurance taxes against the company after concluding that its operations amounted to “employment” under state law. Kaedon Steinert argued that driver payments were not wages for personal services, that drivers were not under company control, and that services were not performed at Hurricane Express’s place of business. The appellate court affirmed the assessment, pointing to the company’s own lease agreements, which had previously categorized drivers as employees, and finding that Hurricane Express did not meet the statutory test for exemption.1vLex. Steinert v. Director, Arkansas Employment Security Department
Eleven years later, the same issue returned in a workers’ compensation posture. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission opened an investigation after an anonymous complaint alleged that neither Hurricane Express, Inc. nor Naedok, LLC, both owned by Steinert, was carrying workers’ compensation insurance for its drivers. An Administrative Law Judge found the drivers were employees, ordered coverage, and fined the two companies $10,000. On November 4, 2009, the Arkansas Court of Appeals upheld the finding that drivers had been misclassified.2Caselaw Findlaw. Steinert v. Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission The court applied a ten-factor “right of control” test and weighed against the carrier that drivers were integral to its business, hauled exclusively for it, displayed its logo, and operated under lease agreements with a Steinert-affiliated entity that required them to haul for Hurricane Express and use company-approved mechanics.3Overdrive Online. For the Record The contracts labeled the drivers as independent contractors; the court looked past the label. One narrow point went Steinert’s way: because his businesses were interrelated, a single workers’ compensation policy covering his office and mechanic staff did not need to be duplicated across entities.4CaseMine. Steinert v. Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
The Turpin Federal Wage Class Action Settled in 2023
In October 2020, a class action landed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Turpin v. Hurricane Express, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00544, was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid wages for a class of workers.5PACER Monitor. Turpin v. Hurricane Express, Inc. et al Judge Gregory K. Frizzell was assigned the case.6Law360. Turpin v. Hurricane Express, Inc. et al
After more than two years of litigation, Hurricane Express settled. On February 13, 2023, Judge Frizzell granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for final approval of the class settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.5PACER Monitor. Turpin v. Hurricane Express, Inc. et al The total settlement amount does not appear in the publicly available docket summaries.
The Maryland Trade Secrets Case
Not every suit against Hurricane Express has come from a driver. In December 2005, Service Transport, Inc., a Hurlock, Maryland brokerage, sued two former employees along with Hurricane Express, Inc., Hurricane Express Logistics, Inc., Kaedon Steinert, and Sheldon Steinert in the Circuit Court for Caroline County, Maryland. Service Transport alleged violations of the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act, claiming the former employees had conspired with the Hurricane defendants to divert customers and misappropriate confidential information about its seafood-transport brokerage business.7The Daily Record. Service Transport, Inc. v. Hurricane Express, Inc. et al
The reported appellate ruling turned on a joinder question. During depositions, Service Transport learned that a separate Steinert entity, Kaedon Steinert, Inc., actually owned and operated the competing brokerage rather than the Hurricane Express entities it had sued. On the eve of trial in October 2007, Service Transport moved to add KSI as a necessary party. The circuit court denied the motion, and on March 27, 2009, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that KSI was a joint tortfeasor and that a plaintiff is “under no obligation to join any and all potential tortfeasors when such parties are jointly and severally liable.” The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in refusing an amendment brought years into the case and days before a scheduled jury trial.8Caselaw Findlaw. Service Transport, Inc. v. Hurricane Express, Inc. et al
The 2026 Defamation Suit Filed by Hurricane Express
In March 2026, Hurricane Express became a plaintiff. The company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Big Rig Nation, Patrick Nicholson, and Rita Nicholson, alleging assault, libel, and slander. The case, No. 3:2026cv00301, went to Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.9Justia Dockets. Hurricane Express v. Big Rig Nation et al Kaedon Steinert submitted declarations attaching screenshots from Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, along with text message logs, to support the claim of ongoing harm.
Hurricane Express asked for a temporary restraining order the same day it filed. The court denied the request without prejudice on March 16, 2026, citing jurisdictional deficiencies. The company filed an amended complaint on March 30 with a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction, which the court held in abeyance pending a business entity disclosure statement from Big Rig Nation. The defendants answered on April 27, 2026, and as of May 2026 Hurricane Express had moved for a more definite statement of the defenses raised. The case remains pending.9Justia Dockets. Hurricane Express v. Big Rig Nation et al
The Lease-Purchase Program Behind the Recurring Disputes
Most of the driver-side litigation shares a common backdrop: the company’s lease-purchase program. Hurricane Express offers drivers a truck with no money down and no credit check, at $75 per day for a 40-month term or $105 per day for a 72-month term, advertising a $2,000 weekly net minimum and a flat $1.50-per-mile pay rate.10Hurricane Express. Lease-Purchase Programs
Driver reviews describe a different arithmetic. Drivers have reported a $600 weekly deduction for a maintenance fund that, by multiple accounts, does not cover all repair costs and is not held in individual accounts, so drivers forfeit the balance if they leave. After lease payments, maintenance deductions, fuel, and other costs, drivers have reported take-home pay in the range of roughly $900 to $1,200 per week. Some former drivers have described the arrangement as closer to a rental than a path to ownership.11The Truckers Report. Hurricane Express Reviews
That structure, and the lease agreements tying drivers to the carrier, is what the Arkansas courts examined in both classification cases, and it is the same operational picture that sits behind the federal wage claims Hurricane Express ultimately settled in 2023.