Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) inches up in pre trading session on Monday after red down pointing triangle is set to present its reasons for a fresh trial in a truck-rollover case that resulted in a $1.7 billion jury award in Georgia earlier this summer.

The Georgia complaint, which was filed in state court, is unique in that a trial was held. Ford resolved dozens of cases where plaintiffs claimed that individuals were killed or suffered significant injuries in heavy-duty vehicle rollovers when the roof fell over the course of over two decades.

The roof strength of earlier Super Duty trucks that the business marketed during a roughly 17-year span has been under question.

The Georgia complaint is related to a rollover collision in 2014 that claimed the lives of an elderly couple operating a Ford F-250 truck. The victims’ attorneys claim that when the truck’s roof collapsed during the event, the victims were crushed inside. Ford has stated that the roof structure is secure as intended and that the vehicles don’t have any flaws.

According to complaints found and examined by The Wall Street Journal, Ford had been sued at least 58 times in cases involving rollovers and claims of roof crush on heavy-duty vehicles made over that 17-year period prior to the $1.7 billion jury verdict—biggest Georgia’s in history.

The Journal’s analysis of these complaints reveals that 38 people passed away as a consequence of the mishaps mentioned in the cases and scores more had life-altering injuries, including paralyzed or quadriplegic individuals.

According to court documents, settlement agreements for 43 of these claims, in which the contents were mostly kept secret or not made public, and the plaintiffs’ attorneys who worked on the cases.

The cases are similar to one another in that they both target the Ford Super Duty range of heavy-duty vehicles that were marketed during the model years of 1999 and 2016. The basic roof layout was the same for all of these vehicles.

Ford has prevailed in four rollover cases involving the in question vehicles, according to Theodore Boutrous, an attorney for the automaker, three of which were resolved by a jury.

I don’t think it’s fair to draw any conclusions about the causes of the accidents or the causes of the injuries based just on claims, he said in reference to the Journal’s study of the cases.

Ford has appealed the $1.7 billion Georgia ruling, claiming that the trucks were secure and the disputed roof is more durable than those of rivals. The business has also contended that injuries in a dramatic rollover incident might result from other circumstances.

The Dearborn, Michigan-based automaker filed two papers in September asking for both a new trial and the jury verdict’s imposition of punitive penalties to be overturned.

Mr. Porter, who spent 30 years as an attorney for GM, where he represented the company in rollover lawsuits, “Rollover cases generally do involve very serious injuries and have the potential for very large verdicts. “There is a greater potential for a rollover case to generate adverse publicity.”