Guardrail controversies
In March 2012, Joshua Harman, co-owner of guardrail manufacturing and installation companies SPIG Industry and Selco Construction Services, filed a federal False Claims Act (FCA) suit against Trinity Highway Products, LLC. Trinity manufactures under license the ET Plus System—a guardrail end terminal system designed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI). Mr. Harman alleged that Trinity did not properly notify the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2005 when Trinity changed the ET Plus guide channel from five inches to four. Trinity made the modification upon the recommendation of TTI which had successfully crash-tested the product, it was revealed in a series of investigative articles published by television station WPRI-TV in May 2014.[23][24][25] Prior to May 18, 2015, FHWA did not expect product submitters to notify FHWA of “non-significant” modifications if the modification was thought to have no effect on how the device would slow, stop or redirect a vehicle.[26] Harman further alleged that these were cost-cutting changes that resulted in unsafe products being deployed on U.S. highways. Automobile accidents involving the ET Plus System have involved guardrails penetrating vehicles and causing injury to occupants although subsequent testing resulted in findings that no unique performance limitations could be attributed to the ET-Plus as manufactured, that there are real-world conditions that exceed the performance expectation of all end terminal systems, and that installation, maintenance and repair were factors affecting the product’s performance.[27][28] Lawsuits regarding the guardrails causing injury to motorists were pending in U.S. courts in 2014.[29]
In October, 2014, the federal lawsuit resulted in a fraud jury verdict of $175 million which under FCA was tripled to $525 million.[30][31] In June 2015, the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas certified the verdict and assessed the final penalty at $663 million.[32] By 2016, Trinity had appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,[33][34] which reversed the trial court and entered judgment in favor of Trinity in 2017.[35]
In January 2014, Nevada suspended the use of the Trinity guardrails due to its then belief that Trinity was required to disclosure the ITT recommended guide channel change.[36] By October 2014, 14 states had suspended new installations of the Trinity guardrail end terminal.[37] A report by the University of Alabama at Birmingham which examined data from almost a decade of crash reports concluded the ET Plus guardrail end terminal to be nearly three times more likely to result in fatality than the previous version of the end terminal. In January 2015, the FHWA commissioned a peer review of the University of Alabama at Birmingham report. All four reviewers raised concerns about limitations or flaws in the study’s methodology, which led all of the reviewers to question the validity of the study’s findings and conclusions.[38] In October 2014, the FHWA issued a memorandum requesting information from state transportation departments regarding the ET Plus performance.[36] In addition, the FHWA requested the guardrail be retested. Trinity voluntarily stopped shipping the ET Plus until the additional crash testing requested by the FHWA could be completed. Up to that point, 42 states had stopped installation of new ET Plus guardrails pending further testing.[34]
Trinity conducted a series of eight crash tests[40] at 27-inch and 31-inch heights to conform to the prevailing standard for guardrails of this type per the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350.[41] After a review by the FHWA and an independent expert, in March 2015 the FHWA announced that the ET Plus as sold by Trinity passed all eight crash tests, and that the product remained eligible for federal reimbursement.[42]
In March 2015, the Virginia Department of Transportation announced plans to replace ET Plus guardrails.[43]
In March 2015, federal officials said the TTI modified design manufactured by Trinity Highway Products met safety standards during crash tests.[34]
In September 2015, The FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published a joint task force report titled, “Safety Analysis of Extruding W-Beam Guardrail End Terminal Crashes.” The report concluded that there are no unique performance limitations that can be attributed to the ET-Plus as manufactured, that there are real-world conditions that exceed the performance expectation of all end terminal systems, and that additional crash testing of all existing NCHRP Report 350-compliant end terminals would be irrelevant and uninformative. The report also cited installation, maintenance and repair as factors affecting product performance.[27][28]
On October 23, 2015, Trinity Highway Products announced that it would resume shipping the ET-Plus "after meeting safety standards in crash tests" to fill orders as they come in.[34]
On November 5, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by counties in Missouri, including the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and the state’s transportation authority, against Trinity Industries and Trinity Highway Products[44] alleging the that the ET-Plus guardrails were defective and dangerous.
On September 29, 2017 the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court and entered judgment in favor of Trinity in United States ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Indus. Inc., 872 F.3d 645 (5th Cir., 2017).[35]
In November 2021, Trinity Industries sold off Trinity Highway Products to the private equity firm Monomoy Capital in a $375 million cash deal.[13]
In 2022, Trinity Industries and Trinity Highway Products agreed to a $56 million settlement of the class action lawsuit that had been filed on November 5, 2015,[45] involving counties in Missouri and the state’s transportation authority.[46]
