Inside the Ambulance Chaser Playbook: Why Tow Operators Are Targeted

By Randall C. Resch When it comes to the “legal side” of our line-of-tow work, let it be known: I don’t have a warm spot for attorneys. Have you ever read—or heard—the statement, “You pay nothing unless your case wins”?

This commonly known declaration invites involved parties to file high-dollar lawsuits, often in feeble attempts to “squeeze settlement dollars” out of tow companies conducting tow, recovery, and repo work. If you follow industry news, there are typically two to five fatal scenarios reported monthly like this—where on-highway motorists “plow” into parked or slow-moving tow trucks. For example, a Charleston, South Carolina, motorist was killed in May 2025 as a result of an early-morning car-versus–tow truck collision. The narrative was penned by a prominent truck attorney and alluded to “fault” being that of the tow truck operator. Although the article failed to include factual evidence regarding fault, I believe it sowed seeds of blame and incompetency toward the tower.

Easy to Win

In this age of “explosive settlements,” and as a means to solicit clients, attorneys often resort to articles and blog videos. These videos show short, nondescript footage of flashing red and blue lights accompanied by sad music. They speak of injured or deceased motorists in equally sad voices, offering minimal details regarding the actual facts of the crash. Some videos even include suggestive wording implying it was the tow company’s fault, all in the name of “ambulance chasing.”

In Technical Terms

New to me is the technical word barratry, also known as “ambulance chasing,” suitably defined by Wikipedia as “a stereotype of lawyers who follow ambulances to the emergency room seeking to find clients.”

While the focus has shifted from ambulances to tow trucks, the transition is easy to follow. Many tow truck collisions that occur across tow-truck land are generally not accidents—they’re incidents. Accidents are preventable.

In the grand scheme of high-dollar lawsuits, attorneys float questions designed to extract “easy-to-win” settlements. Why? When people are injured or killed in incidents involving tow trucks, judges and juries are typically sympathetic to a plaintiff’s woe, even when it was their client who crashed into the tow truck. Attorneys are gunning for the slightest error on the operator’s part.

Attorney articles and videos like these are common attempts to “fish” for nearly guaranteed settlements from tow companies and their insurance providers. Although “innocent until proven guilty” should apply, blog narratives openly infer that tow operators failed to employ acceptable industry practices.

In this “fishing expedition,” the same questions appear repeatedly—questions that aren’t new or confusing. They often include: -- Did the operator attend formal industry or on-highway response training from a recognized tow training entity? -- Did the operator attend the National TIM Course? -- Why was the tow truck parked on the highway or roadway shoulder? -- Why was the tow truck partially blocking all or part of a live lane? -- If driving slower than traffic flow, were emergency (amber) lights or flashers deployed in accordance with state law? -- Did the tow scene include cones, flares, or triangles to provide advanced warning to approaching motorists? -- Did the tow operator initiate safety protocols to minimize time exposed to traffic?

Who’s to Blame?

Lawsuits against towers are through the roof. Not convinced? Watch the daily news. Vehicle-versus–tow truck incidents happen across the U.S. and internationally. Don’t think for a moment it couldn’t happen to you or one of your operators.

If towers operate outside industry-accepted techniques, there will be consequences and accountability.

These questions have plagued the tow, repo, and recovery industries for decades. For attorneys attacking “how towers operate,” finding root causes that lead to collisions begins by scrutinizing what activities, circumstances, or associated factors created the crash.

Rarely does the narrative focus on whether their client failed to slow down or move over, drifted onto the shoulder, drove distracted, or was intoxicated. Instead, the slightest miscalculation or blunder on the operator’s part puts the tower under a proverbial microscope. Even if it was the motorist’s fault, towers still get blamed.

Owners—let this narrative serve as a forever-repeated message defining your company’s vicarious liability. If you’re a tow owner who doesn’t believe in the value of formal training, you may be the next target when your company is named in a high-dollar lawsuit.

I preach loud and hard about the importance of formal training for operators. While training comes with costs and inconveniences, when defending injury, property damage, or fatality cases, training is always the first thing attacked.

Consider this a friendly reminder to operators and tow owners alike: when towers are properly trained and operate under industry-accepted guidelines, there is relief in sitting back and letting the ambulance chasers chase someone else.

Operations Editor  Randall C. Resch is a retired, veteran, California police officer, former tow business owner and industry advocate. As consultant and trainer, he authored and teaches tow truck operator safety courses approved by the California Highway Patrol. For 55-years, he has been involved in the towing and recovery industry. In 26-years, he has contributed more than 760-safety focused articles for American Towman Magazine, TowIndustryWeek.com and is a frequent seminar presenter and beauty pageant judge at tow shows. In 2014, he was inducted to the International Towing and Recovery Industry Hall of Fame, was the 3rd recipient of the industry's "Dave Jones Leadership Award," and is a member of American Towman’s Safety Committee.  

Email Randy at rreschran@gmail.com.