U Haul International Inc

U-Haul International Inc. has settled a class-action lawsuit that had accused the equipment rental giant of deceiving California customers through its reservations policy. The settlement came amid U-Haul's appeal of a court ruling that found it had engaged in fraudulent business practices. In the 2006 ruling, Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge Samuel S. Stevens barred U-Haul agents from promising "confirmed reservations" for one-way equipment rentals in California.

Amerco's U-Haul International Inc. must pay $84 million to a man who was injured when the truck he rented ran over him, a Texas jury said Friday. The man, Talmadge Waldrip, 74, parked the truck on a "slight incline" and the parking brake failed, said his attorney, Ted Lyon. Waldrip said U-Haul failed to maintain the truck, causing the accident. "The truck's parking brake did not work at all," Lyon said. "He stepped out of the truck and it rolled right over him."

MARISSA STERNBERG sits in her wheelchair, barely able to move or speak. Caregivers are always at her side. Progress is measured in tiny steps: an unclenched fist, a look of recognition, a smile for her father. Nearly four years ago, Sternberg was a high-spirited 19-year-old bound for veterinary school in Denver. She rented a U-Haul trailer to move her belongings, hitched it to her Toyota Land Cruiser and hit the road with her two dogs and a friend.

U-HAUL IS MOSTLY self-regulating when it comes to towing safety -- thanks largely to an aggressive campaign it led against proposed federal rules in the late 1960s and early '70s. The safety standards would have governed trailer hitches and couplings and would have set minimum requirements for informing customers of towing risks. They were inspired in part by the so-called Route 66 study by traffic expert J.

THE HEAD of one of America's most famous companies was barreling down a suburban thoroughfare at 80 mph, with no hands on the wheel and a U-Haul trailer in tow. "There's no magic to this," Edward J. "Joe" Shoen, chairman of U-Haul International Inc., told stunned passengers in his Lincoln Town Car. "A trailer wants to trail." Undaunted by the 118-degree heat, Shoen had set out to show two Times reporters that towing U-Haul equipment is perfectly safe -- unless the customer screws up.

THE U-HAUL TRUCK was 19 years old, with nearly 234,000 miles on its odometer. It had a history of problems with its emergency brake and was overdue for a safety inspection. Talmadge Waldrip, 73, of Forney, Texas, was using it to help his daughter move some belongings in September. He drove to a warehouse and killed the engine. Then he put the manual transmission in gear, set the emergency brake and stepped down from the cab, he told family members later. Instantly, the truck rolled backward.

U-HAUL CUSTOMERS who have seethed over botched reservations were vindicated last year when a California judge ruled that the company had engaged in "unlawful and fraudulent business practices." Ruling in a class action, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Samuel S. Stevens struck at U-Haul's practice of booking reservations for trucks and trailers without knowing if it will have the equipment when and where customers need it.

U-HAUL SAYS IT'S SAFER to tow its equipment than to drive a car without a trailer. The company advanced this contrarian idea as far back as 1970, when it was fighting proposed federal towing-safety rules. Citing its own data and figures collected from states, U-Haul said in a report: "AN AUTOMOBILE WITHOUT A TRAILER IS MORE LIKELY TO HAVE AN ACCIDENT THAN ONE WITH A TRAILER."

PINNED inside an overturned Ford Explorer on Interstate 5 in Bakersfield, Gabriel Koloszar looked up to see her friend Paulo Aguilar hanging unconscious from his seat belt, his blood dripping down on her. Rescuers pulled Koloszar out through the windshield. When she tried to stand, another passenger cried out: "Oh my God, Gabby. Your feet!" Only then, she recalled, did she look down to see her mangled flesh.

U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL INC. has had its share of courtroom dramas, but none quite like one involving its corporate sister, Oxford Life Insurance Co. When Oxford balked at paying a modest claim from a badly injured policyholder, it was hammered with a $39-million verdict. The judge denounced Oxford's conduct as the worst he'd ever seen. The policyholder, West Virginia farmer Charles Kocher, had long wanted a Ford pickup.