Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies The Company is party to certain legal proceedings incidental to its business. The ultimate disposition of these matters, in the opinion of management, based in part on the advice of legal counsel, is not expected to have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. For the cases described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of loss because, among other reasons, (1) the proceedings are in various stages; (2) damages have not been sought; (3) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (4) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the proceedings, including pending appeals; and/or (5) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. California Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation On December 23, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and our subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The putative class includes current and former truck drivers employed by us who worked or work in California after the completion of their training while residing in California since December 23, 2011 to present. The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock work, were not provided duty free meal or break times, and were not paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked, were not provided accurate and complete time and pay records and were not paid all accrued wages at the end of their employment, all in violation of California law. The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties, injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. On May 2, 2019, the court dismissed on grounds of preemption the claims alleging failure to provide duty free meal and rest breaks or to pay premium pay for failure to provide such breaks under California law. The matter is currently in discovery, and a jury trial has been requested. There is currently no trial date set. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these claims. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Claim A class action was filed against our subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia on December 11, 2017 and amended on March 7, 2018, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, for two separate proposed classes. The putative classes included all persons within the United States to whom the Company either initiated a telephone call to a cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system or initiated a call to a residential telephone number using an artificial or pre-recorded voice at any time from December 11, 2013 to present. Prior to certification of the class, the parties reached a settlement agreement, and the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice on July 23, 2019. Stockholder Claims As set forth below, between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar putative securities class action complaints were filed against us and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee (“Tennessee State Court Cases”), two in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (“Federal Court Cases”), and one in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (“New York State Court Case”). Two of the Tennessee State Court Cases and one of the Federal Court Cases have been voluntarily dismissed. All of these matters are in preliminary stages of litigation, and discovery has not yet begun. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. On November 21, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against us, five of our officers or directors, and the seven underwriters who participated in our June 2018 initial public offering (“IPO”), alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). The class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the IPO. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) on behalf of the putative class. On January 23, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 7, 2019, this case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. On January 30, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act. On February 5, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act. On February 6, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, by different plaintiffs alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 19, 2019, this case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. On March 8, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On May 9, 2019, this case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. On March 14, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. The parties have stipulated to extend the time for defendants to respond to the complaint in this matter pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed (or to be filed) in the remaining of the Tennessee State Court Cases and the Federal Court Cases. On April 2, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against us and the same five of our officers and directors as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. Unlike the previously filed complaints, this complaint did not name as defendants any of the seven underwriters who participated in our IPO; however, an amended complaint was filed on October 8, 2019 (“Amended Federal Complaint”) which added all underwriters who participated in the IPO as defendants. The three remaining Tennessee State Court Cases have been consolidated, and discovery is currently stayed pending a decision on a motion to dismiss filed by us and the other defendants. On July 18, 2019, the court presiding over the remaining of the Federal Court Cases issued an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Pursuant to a stipulation entered in that matter, the appointed lead plaintiff filed the Amended Federal Complaint on October 8, 2019. The Amended Federal Complaint is made on behalf of a putative class that consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Class A common stock of USX between June 14, 2018 and November 1, 2018 and who were allegedly damaged thereby. In addition, the Amended Federal Complaint alleges additional violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against the Company, its Chief Executive Office and its Chief Financial Officer. The complaints in all the actions listed above allege that the Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO, and that, as a result of such alleged statements, the plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes suffered damages. The Amended Federal Complaint additionally alleges that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer made false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions in press releases, earnings calls, investor conferences, television interviews, and filings made with the SEC subsequent to the IPO. We believe the allegations made in the complaints are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters. Stockholder Derivative Action On June 7, 2019, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada against five of our executives and all five of our independent board members (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO and that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to make such statements. The complaint alleges that the Company has been damaged by the alleged wrongful conduct as a result of, among other things, being subjected to the time and expense of the securities class action lawsuits that have been filed relating to the IPO. In addition to a claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duties, the lawsuit alleges claims against the Individual Defendants for unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The parties have stipulated to a stay of this proceeding pending the filing of an answer or a dismissal in the remaining of the Tennessee State Court Cases or the Federal Court Cases. This matter is in the preliminary stages of litigation and discovery has not yet begun. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters. Independent Contractor Class Action On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against us and our subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. The putative class includes all individuals who performed work for U.S. Xpress, Inc. or U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. as lease drivers from March 26, 2016 to present. The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly designated as such and should be designated as employees and thus subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The complaint further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.’s pay practices with regard to the putative class members violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA for the period from March 26, 2016 to present. The complaint further alleges that we violated the requirements of the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements we entered into with the putative class members. The complaint further alleges that we failed to comply with the terms of the independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements entered into with the putative class members, that we violated the provisions of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in advertising, describing and marketing the lease purchase program to the putative class members, and that we were unjustly enriched as a result of the foregoing allegations. The defendants have filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. The matter is not yet in discovery, and we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the complaints relating to such actions. Other The Company had letters of credit of $31.7 million outstanding as of September 30, 2019. The letters of credit are maintained primarily to support the Company’s insurance program. The Company had cancelable commitments outstanding at September 30, 2019 to acquire revenue equipment for approximately $84.5 million during the remainder of 2019 and $13.1 million in 2020. These purchase commitments are expected to be financed by long-term debt, operating leases, proceeds from sales of existing equipment, and cash flows from operations.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is party to certain legal proceedings incidental to its business. The ultimate disposition of these matters, in the opinion of management, based in part on the advice of legal counsel, is not expected to have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

For the cases described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of loss because, among other reasons, (1) the proceedings are in various stages; (2) damages have not been sought; (3) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (4) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the proceedings, including pending appeals; and/or (5) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

California Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation

On December 23, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and our subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The putative class includes current and former truck drivers employed by us who worked or work in California after the completion of their training while residing in California since December 23, 2011 to present. The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock work, were not provided duty free meal or break times, and were not paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked, were not provided accurate and complete time and pay records and were not paid all accrued wages at the end of their employment, all in violation of California law. The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties, injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. On May 2, 2019, the court dismissed on grounds of preemption the claims alleging failure to provide duty free meal and rest breaks or to pay premium pay for failure to provide such breaks under California law. The matter is currently in discovery, and a jury trial has been requested. There is currently no trial date set. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these claims.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Claim

A class action was filed against our subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia on December 11, 2017 and amended on March 7, 2018, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, for two separate proposed classes. The putative classes included all persons within the United States to whom the Company either initiated a telephone call to a cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system or initiated a call to a residential telephone number using an artificial or pre-recorded voice at any time from December 11, 2013 to present. Prior to certification of the class, the parties reached a settlement agreement, and the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice on July 23, 2019.

Stockholder Claims

As set forth below, between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar putative securities class action complaints were filed against us and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee (“Tennessee State Court Cases”), two in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (“Federal Court Cases”), and one in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (“New York State Court Case”). Two of the Tennessee State Court Cases and one of the Federal Court Cases have been voluntarily dismissed. All of these matters are in preliminary stages of litigation, and discovery has not yet begun. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any.

On November 21, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against us, five of our officers or directors, and the seven underwriters who participated in our June 2018 initial public offering (“IPO”), alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). The class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the IPO. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) on behalf of the putative class.

On January 23, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 7, 2019, this case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On January 30, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 5, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 6, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, by different plaintiffs alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 19, 2019, this case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 8, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On May 9, 2019, this case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 14, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. The parties have stipulated to extend the time for defendants to respond to the complaint in this matter pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed (or to be filed) in the remaining of the Tennessee State Court Cases and the Federal Court Cases.

On April 2, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against us and the same five of our officers and directors as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. Unlike the previously filed complaints, this complaint did not name as defendants any of the seven underwriters who participated in our IPO; however, an amended complaint was filed on October 8, 2019 (“Amended Federal Complaint”) which added all underwriters who participated in the IPO as defendants.

The three remaining Tennessee State Court Cases have been consolidated, and discovery is currently stayed pending a decision on a motion to dismiss filed by us and the other defendants. On July 18, 2019, the court presiding over the remaining of the Federal Court Cases issued an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Pursuant to a stipulation entered in that matter, the appointed lead plaintiff filed the Amended Federal Complaint on October 8, 2019. The Amended Federal Complaint is made on behalf of a putative class that consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Class A common stock of USX between June 14, 2018 and November 1, 2018 and who were allegedly damaged thereby. In addition, the Amended Federal Complaint alleges additional violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against the Company, its Chief Executive Office and its Chief Financial Officer.

The complaints in all the actions listed above allege that the Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO, and that, as a result of such alleged statements, the plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes suffered damages. The Amended Federal Complaint additionally alleges that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer made false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions in press releases, earnings calls, investor conferences, television interviews, and filings made with the SEC subsequent to the IPO. We believe the allegations made in the complaints are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

Stockholder Derivative Action

On June 7, 2019, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada against five of our executives and all five of our independent board members (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO and that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to make such statements. The complaint alleges that the Company has been damaged by the alleged wrongful conduct as a result of, among other things, being subjected to the time and expense of the securities class action lawsuits that have been filed relating to the IPO. In addition to a claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duties, the lawsuit alleges claims against the Individual Defendants for unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The parties have stipulated to a stay of this proceeding pending the filing of an answer or a dismissal in the remaining of the Tennessee State Court Cases or the Federal Court Cases. This matter is in the preliminary stages of litigation and discovery has not yet begun. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

Independent Contractor Class Action

On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against us and our subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. The putative class includes all individuals who performed work for U.S. Xpress, Inc. or U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. as lease drivers from March 26, 2016 to present. The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly designated as such and should be designated as employees and thus subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The complaint further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.’s pay practices with regard to the putative class members violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA for the period from March 26, 2016 to present. The complaint further alleges that we violated the requirements of the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements we entered into with the putative class members. The complaint further alleges that we failed to comply with the terms of the independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements entered into with the putative class members, that we violated the provisions of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in advertising, describing and marketing the lease purchase program to the putative class members, and that we were unjustly enriched as a result of the foregoing allegations. The defendants have filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. The matter is not yet in discovery, and we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the complaints relating to such actions.

Other

The Company had letters of credit of $31.7 million outstanding as of September 30, 2019. The letters of credit are maintained primarily to support the Company’s insurance program.

The Company had cancelable commitments outstanding at September 30, 2019 to acquire revenue equipment for approximately $84.5 million during the remainder of 2019 and $13.1 million in 2020. These purchase commitments are expected to be financed by long-term debt, operating leases, proceeds from sales of existing equipment, and cash flows from operations.