Remember when an accident meant a ton of paperwork and an insurance claim? These days, motor vehicle accidents are subject to additional scrutiny and liability, with the telematics and AI extensions often used to enhance safety.

This data ownership landscape can be tricky to navigate, with intersecting privacy laws, vendor contracts, regulatory compliance, and litigation strategy. 

What once lived quietly in dashboards and safety reports can quickly become central evidence.

That shift forces fleets to confront difficult questions: Who owns the data? Who must produce it? What must be preserved? How do privacy and employment laws apply? And how do contracts shape outcomes?

We spoke with William Nilsson, litigation counsel for Geotab, and Wes Hurst, attorney at Polsinelli, to gain more insight into what fleets need to reduce the risk in their data.

What Data Matters Most and What Fleets Often Overlook

The most obvious data points in a crash investigation are straightforward: speed, location, and timing. But in practice, attorneys sometimes cast a much wider net.

Commonly requested data includes:

• Telematics data (speed, GPS, harsh braking/acceleration, diagnostics)

• Time stamps and trip histories

• Forward-, driver-, and side-facing video footage

• Hours of Service (HOS) and ELD records

• Dispatch and communication logs

• Maintenance and inspection records

• Driver training and qualification files

But what often surprises fleets is the scope of requests.

Legal teams frequently go beyond the incident itself and ask for historicaldata, such as:

• Driver behavior scores and safety rankings

• Prior incidents involving the same driver

• Patterns of unsafe driving over time

“Fleets should have documented data retention policies and litigation hold procedures in place before an incident occurs. Waiting until an accident happens to figure out preservation protocols creates significant legal exposure,” explained Nillson.

Data Ownership and Dissemination

Ownership is where complexity begins.

Fleet data may be generated, stored, or controlled by multiple parties:

• OEMs

• Telematics providers

• Leasing companies

• Fleet operators

• Drivers

Because of this fragmented ecosystem, ownership disputes can occur. When litigation begins, the entity holding the data may claim it does not own it, thereby attempting to avoid production. 

In practice, these disputes rarely end the conversation. Courts often step in and compel production. Ownership arguments may delay disclosure, but they do not remove the requirement.

However, fleets are not always required to voluntarily hand over data.

Absent a subpoena or court order, fleets generally have discretion to withhold or delay production to third parties, but should involve legal counsel.

However, that discretion is limited by several important factors:

• Preservation obligations still apply

• Contracts may require data sharing (insurance, telematics vendors, customers)

• Regulatory requirements may apply (e.g., ELD data for FMCSA)

In most cases, fleets should seek legal counsel before deciding whether to respond to a request and on the best course of action.

Privacy and Employment Law

When the driver is an employee, data issues become even more complex.

Telematics and video data can reveal highly sensitive information about a driver’s behavior, location, and performance. This introduces concerns over employee privacy, state-specific labor law considerations, and questions about monitoring and disclosure.

Even when data is relevant, courts must weigh its value against privacy protections. 

Discovery and admissibility are two very different thresholds, and fleets must be prepared for both.

Mission Critical: Preserve the Evidence

A fleet’s duty to preserve evidence begins when litigation is reasonably anticipated, not when a lawsuit is filed. In other words, if you think this accident could lead to litigation, preserve the data.

This can happen:

• Immediately after a serious crash involving injuries or fatalities

• Upon receiving a letter of demand or notice of claim

• When a dispute suggests legal action is likely

In these cases, fleets must preserve all potentially relevant data, including telematics and video, communications and dispatch records, and any data subject to automatic deletion.

“Fleets must suspend automatic deletion cycles (e.g., dashcam overwrite, telematics data purging) for relevant data. Spoliation, or the destruction of evidence after the preservation duty attaches, can result in severe sanctions, adverse jury instructions, or even case dismissal.” Nilsson explained.

Spoilation claims can have serious consequences like financial penalties, adverse jury instructions, and possible dismissal of claims or defenses

Critically, mishandling data after a crash can create liability independent of the accident itself.

Bottom line: preserve now, argue later.

Safety vs. Liability

For fleet managers, data ownership and liability can cause concern about being left open to legal exposure, but avoiding data is not a viable strategy.

Some lawyers have argued that failing to monitor safety or rejecting available data collection can be interpreted as negligence or misconduct. This is complex and evolving and should be reviewed with your counsel.

Depending on the circumstances, one approach is to use data proactively. Data can help fleet managers identify risky behavior early and work to mitigate those risks. That data also allows them to document any corrective action taken, which helps fleet managers demonstrate a culture of safety overall. However, whether to undertake this approach and what criteria apply should be reviewed carefully.

In today’s environment, responsible data use might be available as a defense.

Vendor Contracts Quietly Decide Outcomes

While litigation often focuses on facts, outcomes are frequently shaped by contracts.

Agreements with OEMs, telematics providers, leasing companies, and employees define who controls the data, who has access to it, who must cooperate during litigation, and what disclosures are required

If the contract agreements and actual data practices are not the same, companies can be left with serious gaps and risks. Especially in the case of an accident where data is needed after a crash.

Equally important is transparency. Drivers should be clearly informed that telematics systems are in use and that data is being recorded.

Despite its complex nature, it all boils down to three principles:

1. It depends – Every case is fact-specific

2. State law matters – Jurisdiction shapes outcomes

3. Disclose – Transparency is critical

As vehicle technology evolves, the volume and sophistication of fleet data is likely to increase.

ADAS systems, expanded video coverage, and emerging autonomy will generate gaps in liability and raise new legal questions.