The van that hit you had “Amazon” painted on the side. The driver wore an Amazon uniform. The packages inside were Amazon packages. But when you filed a claim, Amazon’s response was some version of: “That driver doesn’t work for us.”
If you’ve been injured by an Amazon or FedEx Ground delivery vehicle in Nevada, this disconnect between what you saw and what the company claims is not a mistake. It is the result of a deliberate corporate structure designed to put liability at arm’s length. Here is how that structure works, why it does not always hold up, and what legal theories may allow you to reach the company behind the branding.
The Middleman Layer: How DSPs And ISPs Actually Work
Amazon and FedEx Ground do not directly employ most of their delivery drivers. Instead, they use middleman companies that contract with the parent company to handle last-mile delivery. Amazon calls these Delivery Service Partners (DSPs). FedEx Ground calls them Independent Service Providers (ISPs).
Here is what this looks like in practice:
Amazon’s DSP model: A DSP is typically a small LLC employing 20 to 40 drivers. The DSP signs a contract with Amazon Logistics to deliver packages on designated routes. Amazon is reported to require each DSP to carry commercial auto liability insurance, reported at $1,000,000, and to list Amazon as an additional insured on the policy. Those are terms of that contract rather than a rule of law, so confirm the current terms instead of relying on the figure. Drivers wear Amazon-branded uniforms, operate Amazon-branded vans (often leased through an Amazon-approved vendor), and follow routes assigned by Amazon’s software. Amazon’s DSP program now includes over 3,000 independently owned companies employing more than 275,000 delivery drivers nationwide.
FedEx Ground’s ISP model: An ISP purchases delivery routes from FedEx Ground, owns or leases its own delivery vehicles, and hires its own drivers. FedEx is reported to require its ISPs to carry commercial auto liability insurance, but the required amount is a term of that contract rather than a rule of law, so confirm the current terms instead of relying on a figure. Vehicles carry FedEx branding and drivers wear FedEx uniforms. Whose operating authority the vehicles run under, meaning the U.S. DOT and motor carrier numbers on the van, is one of the first things to check in a case.
In both models, the contract between the parent company and the DSP/ISP says the same thing: the DSP or ISP is an “independent contractor,” not an employee, and the parent company is not liable for the contractor’s negligence.
That is the shield. Here is how courts have been piercing it.
Why The “Independent Contractor” Defense Is Weakening
The independent contractor label is a starting point for legal analysis, not an ending point. Nevada courts, like courts across the country, look beyond what a contract says and examine how the relationship actually operates. The central question is control: does the parent company control not just the result of the work, but the means and manner of how the work is performed?
Juries in other states have answered “yes.” In Shaw v. Amazon.com, Inc., a jury in the Dorchester County, South Carolina, Court of Common Pleas returned a verdict against Amazon on December 7, 2023, reported at $44.6 million, including a reported $30 million in punitive damages. In Bradfield v. Amazon Logistics, No. 22-C-07003-S7, a jury in the Gwinnett County, Georgia, State Court returned a verdict in August 2024 reported at about $16.2 million, with a reported 85 percent of the fault apportioned to Amazon. Those figures come from trial press coverage rather than from court records, and we have not checked what became of either verdict in post-trial motions or on appeal.
These verdicts are not Nevada cases, and every case depends on its own facts and circumstances. But they illustrate a national trend that Nevada courts may find persuasive: the independent contractor label does not automatically shield the parent company when the evidence shows employer-level control.
The Right-To-Control Test
Courts and insurers commonly look at the degree of control the hiring entity exercises over the worker when the question is whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for liability purposes. We do not have a Nevada decision on file setting out a test for this, so treat the label on the contract as a starting point rather than an answer, and ask your attorney how it is likely to be argued in your case. The practical questions are how much control the hiring entity had over how the work was done, and whether the worker was acting within the scope of the duties the entity defined. How that analysis comes out on a particular set of facts is something to ask your attorney about.
With Amazon DSP drivers, evidence of control is extensive:
Route assignment: Amazon’s proprietary software assigns every package and every stop. DSP drivers do not choose their own routes, sequence their own deliveries, or decide which packages to deliver first. Amazon’s system dictates the order.
Real-time monitoring: Amazon uses in-cab camera systems (Netradyne) and a driver-scoring app (Mentor) to track speed, hard braking, cornering, following distance, and distracted driving on every shift. Drivers receive performance scores that directly affect the DSP’s contract standing with Amazon.
Hiring and training standards: DSPs must follow Amazon’s hiring criteria, including specific background check requirements. Once hired, every driver completes Amazon’s training program on safe driving practices and delivery policies.
Appearance and branding: Amazon financially incentivizes DSPs to become “Amazon-branded.” Branded DSPs earn more per delivery but must purchase Amazon uniforms and lease Amazon-branded vehicles through Amazon-designated vendors.
Delivery quotas and pace: Amazon sets delivery expectations, including 350 to 400 packages per vehicle per day and expected completion times. Multiple lawsuits have alleged that Amazon’s delivery pace requirements create pressure that contributes to unsafe driving. A CBS News analysis of six years of federal safety data found that Amazon’s contracted carriers had unsafe driving violation rates, including speeding and texting while driving, at least 89% higher than non-Amazon carriers in every month examined.
FedEx Ground exercises similar control over ISP drivers through handheld scanners that track location and delivery times, required FedEx branding on vehicles and uniforms, and vehicle maintenance and appearance standards.
When the company dictating routes, monitoring driving behavior, setting hiring standards, controlling branding, and establishing delivery pace claims it has no control over the driver, courts are increasingly skeptical.
Ostensible (Apparent) Agency
Nevada recognizes the doctrine of ostensible agency in the hospital setting. The Nevada Supreme Court adopted it in Schlotfeldt v. Charter Hospital of Las Vegas, 112 Nev. 42, 910 P.2d 271 (1996), where it held that ostensible agency turns on questions of fact for a jury rather than something a court can decide as a matter of law, and it extended the doctrine to emergency room physicians in Renown Health v. Vanderford, 126 Nev. 221, 235 P.3d 614 (2010), the same decision in which the court refused to impose an absolute nondelegable duty on hospitals. The questions those cases put to a jury are whether the injured person entrusted himself or herself to the institution, whether the institution selected the person who caused the harm, whether the injured person reasonably believed that person was the institution’s agent, and whether the injured person had notice of that person’s independent contractor status.
The core principle: a company may answer for the negligence of someone it held out to the public as its own. The label in the contract does not settle the question by itself, and neither does the appearance on its own, because one of the questions Nevada courts ask is whether the injured person was put on notice that the person was an independent contractor.
Nevada has applied ostensible agency in hospital cases about independent contractor physicians, and no Nevada decision has extended it to a delivery company and its contract drivers, so an Amazon or FedEx case asks a court to take the doctrine somewhere it has not yet gone. Whether the company created the appearance of agency would be a question of fact for a jury, not something a court decides as a matter of law. The facts that argument would rest on are easy to state. The van carries the company’s logo. The driver wears the company’s uniform. The packages inside bear the company’s branding. The tracking notification on your phone says “Your Amazon package is being delivered.” A reasonable person standing on the sidewalk when that van runs a red light would have every reason to believe the driver works for Amazon or FedEx. The companies created that appearance deliberately because it benefits their brand. They should not be allowed to disclaim the relationship only when liability attaches.
Negligent Hiring, Supervision, And Retention
Even if a court accepts the independent contractor classification, a separate theory may apply: the parent company can be held directly liable for its own negligence in selecting, supervising, or retaining the contractor. If Amazon contracted with a DSP that had a pattern of hiring drivers with dangerous driving histories, or if FedEx Ground continued operating with an ISP it knew was violating safety requirements, the parent company’s own failure to exercise reasonable care becomes the basis for liability.
This theory does not require proving that the driver was an employee. It requires proving that the parent company knew, or should have known, that the contractor or its drivers posed a risk, and failed to act.
The Insurance Problem: Why The DSP’s Policy May Not Be Enough
Both Amazon DSPs and FedEx Ground ISPs are required to carry commercial auto liability insurance, typically $1,000,000 per occurrence. For many accidents, this coverage is sufficient. But for serious injuries (traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord damage, multiple surgeries, long-term rehabilitation), $1,000,000 can be inadequate, especially when multiple parties are injured in the same accident.
This is precisely why piercing the independent contractor shield matters. If you can only reach the DSP’s or ISP’s insurance, you are limited to whatever coverage that small company carries. If you can establish that Amazon or FedEx is also liable, whether through the control test, ostensible agency, or negligent hiring, you may access the parent company’s corporate insurance, which represents a significantly deeper pool of coverage.
Nevada’s Independent Contractor Framework
Nevada’s statutory test for independent contractor status, NRS 608.0155, is a conclusive presumption rather than a weighing of factors. Under subsection 1, a person is conclusively presumed to be an independent contractor only if all three of the following hold: the person has or has applied for an employer identification number or social security number, or filed a return for business or self-employment earnings with the IRS in the previous year; the contract with the principal requires the person to hold any necessary state or local business license and to maintain any necessary occupational license, insurance or bonding; and the person meets three or more of five criteria, which include control over the means and manner of the work, control over when the work is performed, not being required to work exclusively for one principal, freedom to hire employees to assist, and a substantial investment of capital in the business.
However, this statutory test applies specifically to claims under NRS Chapter 608 (wages and employment). For tort liability (personal injury claims), Nevada courts apply the common-law right-to-control analysis, which focuses on whether the hiring entity controlled the manner and method of the work. The distinction matters: a DSP may technically qualify as an independent contractor under the statutory test because it holds a business license and employs its own workers, while simultaneously failing the common-law control test because Amazon dictates virtually every aspect of how those workers perform their jobs.
Nevada’s comparative negligence rule (NRS 41.141) also applies. If your share of the fault is greater than the combined fault of the parties you are suing, you recover nothing (NRS 41.141). Even partial fault reduces your recovery proportionally. In multi-party delivery vehicle accidents, fault can be allocated among the driver, the DSP/ISP, the parent company, and potentially other drivers involved in the collision.
When Your Case Is Likely Strong Vs. Likely Weak
Indicators of a stronger claim:
- The van was clearly branded (Amazon logo, FedEx Ground markings), supporting an ostensible agency argument
- The driver was on an active delivery route at the time of the accident (not commuting, not on a personal errand)
- Your injuries are serious enough that the DSP’s/ISP’s $1,000,000 policy is insufficient, creating a need to reach the parent company
- Evidence exists that Amazon or FedEx exercised significant operational control over the driver (route data, monitoring records, performance scores)
- The DSP/ISP or driver had prior safety issues the parent company knew or should have known about
Indicators your claim may face challenges:
- The vehicle was unbranded or the driver was off-route at the time of the accident, weakening the ostensible agency theory
- Your injuries are within the DSP’s/ISP’s policy limits, in which case piercing the contractor shield may not be necessary to achieve full recovery
- Fault is disputed or shared, and the insurer is attempting to assign you a significant percentage of responsibility
- The driver was an Amazon Flex driver (personal vehicle, no branding), where the control analysis is weaker than with DSP drivers
A note on Amazon Flex: Amazon Flex drivers use their own personal vehicles to deliver packages through an app-based gig model, similar to rideshare driving. They do not drive branded vans or wear Amazon uniforms. Because they use personal vehicles, insurance coverage can be more complicated. Their personal auto policy may deny coverage for commercial activity, and Amazon’s contingent coverage during active delivery blocks may be the primary source of recovery. If you were hit by an Amazon Flex driver, the legal and insurance analysis differs significantly from a branded DSP van accident.
What To Do If You Were Hit By A Branded Delivery Van
Document the branding immediately. Photograph the vehicle from multiple angles, capturing the logo, license plate, and any fleet identification numbers. Photograph the driver’s uniform if it bears company branding. This evidence supports both your identification of which parties are responsible and your ostensible agency argument.
Get the police report. Make sure the responding officer documents the driver’s employer information, the company name on the vehicle, and any fleet or route numbers. If the driver claims to work for a company you have never heard of (the DSP or ISP), note that name separately from the branding on the van. Both matter.
Do not accept the first settlement offer from the DSP’s insurer. The DSP’s or ISP’s insurance company will likely contact you quickly with an offer designed to resolve the claim before anyone investigates whether the parent company is also liable. Accepting that offer may waive your right to pursue Amazon or FedEx separately.
Preserve evidence of the delivery route. If the driver was delivering packages in your neighborhood, that delivery activity is relevant to proving the driver was acting within the scope of work. Note any packages visible in the van, any delivery confirmations you or neighbors received around the time of the accident, and any tracking notifications.
Watch The Clock
Nevada requires personal injury claims to be filed within two years of the accident (NRS 11.190). Cases involving corporate contractor structures take longer to investigate than standard car accident claims because identifying all liable parties, obtaining the DSP/ISP contract with the parent company, and developing evidence of control all require time. Starting early matters.
Talk To Jack About Your Situation
Piercing the independent contractor shield requires understanding how Amazon and FedEx structure their delivery operations, what legal theories apply under Nevada law, and how to develop the evidence of control that makes the parent company a proper defendant. With 40+ years as a personal injury attorney, Jack Bernstein knows how to identify every liable party in a delivery vehicle accident and pursue recovery beyond the contractor’s policy limits when the facts support it. Contact Jack Bernstein Injury Lawyers for a free consultation: (702) 633-3333.