Menu

Bits & Pieces

Volume 21, Edition 4

Dear Subscribers,

I generally start the Bits and Pieces with some simple phrase about the preceding month. This month, unfortunately, I take the time to sadly report on the sudden passing of the longest standing employee at CAB, Mark Schweber. Mark joined CAB 35 years ago and rose to be our Director of Financial Analysis. Mark was an important part of our financial analysis group, taking the time to teach our analysts on the unique nature of evaluating the financial stability of trucking operations. Mark joined us as a young man out of college, spending his entire career here, something one rarely sees today. Losing Mark was sudden and his loss is felt strongly by all of us. Mark was a character and truly enjoyed explaining to trucking companies why they got the rating they did. He loved telling truckers that “barely fair” was pretty darn good in his view. Mark deserves the highest rating – Satisfactory by our standards. He is survived by his best friend and wife, Andrea and his beautiful daughter Rebecca and all his friends here at CAB. He will be missed.

The IMUA meeting in Scottsdale is coming up soon. We are looking forward to seeing many of you there. This is always a great event and we remind you of the Bring a Buddy program – thing about bringing the people new to inland marine insurance. They will learn so much from us old folks! I will also be at the Board of Marine Underwriters in San Francisco talking about inland marine insurance so hopefully will catch up with some of you there.

This month was fairly quiet, but we found a few nuggets of information. We report:

CAB IN THE NEWS! Not to toot our own horn, but we were very excited to read this article this month in Freightwaves profiling our part in the transportation industry. Take a look.

FMCSA DOCTOR REGISTRY, The FMCSA’s National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners website is still in a state of flux since the hack back in December and they have advised that they are continuing to try to fix the problem. Medical examiners, which were certified before the hack, have been able to continue conducting DOT physicals and issuing medical certificates (Form MCSA-5876) to qualified drivers. Unfortunately the back log of results is jamming the system.

ELD POINT VIOLATIONS. The FMSCA has assigned severity weights to each of about a dozen electronic logging device-related violations that are being recorded on a driver’s or motor carrier’s safety profile score. A complete list of the new violations can be viewed here. The violations range from 1 to 5 points.

OPERATION SAFE DRIVER WEEK CVSA has announced that its next targeted enforcement in mid-July will focus on risky driving behaviors, including speeding, distracted driving, texting, seatbelt usage, following too closely, improper lane change, and failure to obey traffic control devices.

Current Cases

Auto
Speaking of certified doctors, one plaintiff in the Middle District of Alabama has turned his attention to pursuing a claim against the doctor. Plaintiff has commenced an action against the doctor who certified the truck driver who injured plaintiff in a truck accident. Plaintiff claimed the doctor was not authorized to certify drivers and should have known of the driver’s medical issues. The issue addressed by the court was whether the doctor, who certified the driver in Georgia, was subject to jurisdiction in Alabama when the accident occurred there (he was not). The court transferred the case to Georgia. Hardman v Southeast Permanent Medical Group, 2018 WL 1457297

The First District in Florida held that a Florida statute which imposes strict liability for the release of certain pollutants did not give rise to a private right of action. The plaintiff was injured when he came into contact with battery acid which spilled from a shipment of batteries which were on the road after an accident. He sought recovery from the motor carrier who spilled the cargo. While the court held that it did not permit a right of action, it certified the question to the Supreme Court so we will follow the decision for further reporting. Simon’s Trucking v. Lieupo, 2018 WL 1833415.

When discovery reveals facts which would support a claim for punitive damages against a motor carrier a plaintiff was permitted to amend the complaint. The Western District of Pennsylvania would not however allow a claim for loss of parental consortium by the plaintiff’s children, concluding that Pennsylvania law did not permit such a claim. Pegley v. Roles, 2018 WL 1863024

One motor carrier is being forced to litigate a truck accident in both state and federal court. The Northern District of Alabama held that it would allow one plaintiff to continue its action in the federal court even while a passenger had a similar suit pending against the motor carrier in state court. Jacks v. Cedric Dejanero Chance, 2018 WL 1856195

A motor carrier’s efforts to remove a tort action to federal court failed in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The court held that the motor carrier could not prove that naming the driver of the other vehicle was done simply to defeat diversity. In addition the court held that the removal was untimely when the motor carrier claimed that it only moved to remove the case when it found evidence that the plaintiff’s law firm had a pattern of adding non-diverse parties to stave off removal. Harris v. U.S. Express 2018 WL 1737575

Serving a co-habitant of a person authorized to receive service for an artificial entity, a trucking company, was held to be insufficient service in the Northern District of Alabama. The court did not dismiss the suit, however, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to complete service. Haynes v. Johnson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56271

When the amount of damages is in issue, it is the defendant’s obligation to show that the plaintiff seeks more than $75,000 if it wants to stay in federal court. The Eastern District of Missouri held that plaintiff’s post complaint demand of $100,000, together with the failure of plaintiff to stipulate that damages were below $75,000 was sufficient to allow the trucker to continue the case in federal court. Hughes v. Transwood, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. 62074

The Southern District in Ohio denied the request of a tractor owner for reconsideration of the denial of its summary judgment motion under the Graves Amendment. The Court had held that the Graves Amendment was inapplicable when the argument being presented by the plaintiff alleged that the lessor was an alter ego of the motor carrier. The court held that there was a question of fact as to whether both defendants would be considered employers of the driver. Parker v. Miller, 2018 U.S. Dist LEXIS 62155

Sanctions were not warranted against a motor carrier who failed to maintain data from the Omnitrac system which it used to keep data on drivers. The Middle District of Georgia held that the plaintiff was not substantially impacted by the failure to keep the data when there were other sources of data which could supply similar information. Barrett v. FedEx Custom Critical, Inc. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60139.

Leasing equipment to another motor carrier and providing a driver may not be enough to avoid being a motor carrier for hire. The Western District of Oklahoma held that an insurer was premature in its request for a declaration that the MCS-90 did not apply to the liability which the insured may have for an accident when the vehicle was operated by the co-defendant. The court also held that the fact that the actual motor carrier had insurance coverage in excess of the MCS-90 requirements did not preclude the MCS-90 from applying, concluding that the obligation is satisfied per accident, not per carrier. Militello v. ICAN Logistics, 2018 WL 61400.  In a related case the Court ruled that the actual motor carrier was entitled to indemnity from the vehicle owner under the terms of the lease. The Court agreed that the lease clearly made the lessor responsible to indemnify the motor carrier. Militello v. ICAN Logistics, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61399

A motor carrier was required to produce the early scene investigation performed by a third party adjuster under the direction of counsel retained to address the accident. The District Court in Minnesota held the motor carrier failed to show that the investigation was subject to a work product privilege when it failed to produce evidence that the accident investigation was not a normal part of its business operations. Soto v. Swift Transp. Servs. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63138

A truck driver whose vehicle was under lease to a motor carrier used his vehicle, for compensation, as part of a Mardi Gras parade. The Court of Appeals in Louisiana upheld the trial court’s decision to grant judgment to the motor carrier. The court agreed that the vehicle was not being operated in the business of the motor carrier and that the federal “exclusive responsibility” regulations were inapplicable to intrastate transport. Jackson v. Wise, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 716

Over in the Western District of Kentucky the Court granted summary judgment to a truck company on a punitive damages claim arising from a truck accident. The court held that under Kentucky law an employer cannot be held liable for punitive damages based upon vicarious liability and that retaining the driver after the accident did not give rise to a claim that the trucker ratified the actions of the driver. The court did leave open the claim of punitive damages against the driver and co-driver, concluding that there could be a basis for a punitive damages claim. White v. Transportation Services, Inc. 2018 WL 15708187

In the Northern District of Oklahoma a different result was reached by the court. The court denied the defendants motion for summary judgment on claims of negligent entrustment and punitive damages against the employer of the truck driver. The court held that there were sufficient facts raised to claim that the employer knew that the driver suffered from sleep apnea and permitted the driver to drive outside the hours of service all of which could all support a negligent entrustment and punitive damage claim. Byrd v. Ace American Insurance Co., 2018 WL 1569499

Sufficient facts were alleged by the plaintiff to support a possible claim for punitive damages against a truck driver in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The court held that when the defendant allegedly made a right turn from the left lane when the plaintiff was in the right lane he was reasonably aware of the risk of making the turn and so permitted punitive damages to remain on the table. Gontarski v. Hoag, 2018 WL 1440982

A trucker was successful in recovering monies from its liability insurer for monies which it owed following resolution of a claim for superfund clean-up. Claims were made against the trucker for toxins released following truck clean-ups and washes. The 5th District of Illinois held that the insurer was estopped to assert the pollution exclusion in its policy and that it had breached the duty to defend, further allowing recovery of attorney’s fees and statutory damages to the motor carrier. Rogers Cartage Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 2018 WL 160098.

When a truck driver fled the scene of an accident, leaving the injured party unattended, the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that the plaintiff could allege all of those facts under the complaint. The defendant’s argument that the allegations were scandalous and immaterial was unavailing. Lane v. McLean, 2018 WL 1545588

Be careful what you allege when suits are brought by different parties in different court. The District Court in Kansas denied a request to dismiss a suit brought by plaintiff for injuries suffered in a truck accident even though there was a second action pending in another jurisdiction. That action, which was brought by a motor carrier’s pd insurer, had resulted in cross and counter-claims asserting similar damages to that pending action. The court held that the “first to file” rule did not apply when one of the actions was in state court. Konopasek v. Ozark Kenworth, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61285

When a manufacturer’s palletization, warehousing and cargo loading complied with the reasonable standards of the industry the manufacturer would not be liable for injuries suffered by the warehouse driver when a box of tiles fell on the plaintiff during unloading from the truck. The Southern District of New York held that under New York law the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Bah v. Everlast Logistics, 2018 WL 1517191

The Court of Appeals in Louisiana affirmed a decision granting summary judgment to a trucker who was sued following a 3 vehicle accident. The Court held that there was no reasonable basis for finding the trucking company was negligent when it was the third vehicle to be struck. Boyance v. United Fire & Casualty, 2018 WL 1515702

Who is responsible when equipment is defectively put together by a third party and it results in an accident? The Court of Appeals in Indiana held that Paccar could be held liable for providing parts of a semi-tractor that lacked necessary safety features even though it was assembled by the trucking company who was operating the vehicle at the time of the loss. Brewer v. Paccar, 2018 WL 1474250

Cargo
Judgment was afforded against a motor carrier in a Carmack suit brought by a truck broker. The truck broker had an assignment of the shipper’s claim and defendant offered no basis for a denial of liability. The Northern District of Illinois gave the broker all that it asked for. Coyote Logistics v. Concord Services, 2018 WL 1468997

Although not a cargo claim, the issue of date of loss under an inland marine policy was addressed by the Texas Appellate Court. The court held that the insured failed to show that a theft occurred before the policy was non-renewed when the insured had not seen the equipment for a period of time before the discovery, which was post nonrenewal. Plaintiff could not argue that there was a question of fact as to the date of loss by simply claiming it had not seen the equipment before the policy non-renewed and that it, therefore, could have been stolen while the policy was in effect. Schrader v. Tex. Farm Bureau Underwriters, 2018 Tex. App LEXIS 2445

Setting forth a specific amount is a requirement for complying with the cargo claim requirements, even under the substantial performance standard. The 9th Circuit held that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the claim filing requirements when it simply noted the value of the cargo and indicated that the cargo was still subject to inspection. NY Marine v. Estes Express, 2018 WL 1804229

Worker’s Compensation
The Court of Appeals In California granted judgment to a motor carrier and the driver on a claim for injuries by a co-driver. The Court held that the sole remedy for the plaintiff was worker’s compensation and that plaintiff could not support a claim that the motor carrier was not his employee simply because the vehicle was under lease to another carrier. Stoilkov v. Yin, 2018 Cal. App Unpub. LEXIS 2422

See you next month!

Volume 21, Edition 3

Happy March!

Spring is in the air (it is just a little muffled by the snow down here on the Jersey shore). It is the start of the conference season and we are looking forward to catching up with many of you! I will be at the TIDA cargo session the first week of April and BMUSF in May – hope we get to catch up. Registration for the annual IMUA meeting is open. Tiana and I will be there. A good time is always had by all and we learn a lot about new issues in the industry. Come along and bring a pal – check www.imua.org for more information.
This month we report:

ELD NEWS. The time has come! April 1, 2018 starts the actual enforcement of the ELD mandate. Out of Service orders and CSA violation points will begin being issued. The driver in violation will remain out-of-service for 10 hours in accordance with Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance criteria. Drivers then be allowed to travel to the next scheduled stop and are not allowed to be dispatched again without an ELD. If the driver is dispatched again without an ELD, the motor carrier will be subject to further enforcement action. The FMCSA will also extend by 90 days a waiver for agricultural commodities and livestock haulers to comply with the electronic logging device mandate. Eligible motor carriers to handle agricultural commodities as defined under 49 CFR 395.2.

CVSA. The CVSA International Roadcheck will take place June 5-7. This year’s focus is on hours-of-service (HOS) compliance. Inspectors will primarily conduct the North American Standard Level 1 Inspection, which is a 37-step procedure that includes an examination of both driver operating requirements and vehicle mechanical fitness. The vehicle inspection includes checking brake systems, cargo securement, coupling devices, driveline/driveshaft components, exhaust systems, frames, fuel systems, lighting devices, steering mechanisms, suspensions, tires, van and open-top trailer bodies, wheels, rims and hubs, and windshield wipers. Additional items for buses include emergency exits, electrical cables and systems in the engine and battery compartments, and seating. Drivers are asked to provide their operating credentials and hours-of-service documentation, and will be checked for seat belt usage. Inspectors will also be attentive to apparent alcohol and/or drug impairment.

AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES. As we are all aware, autonomous vehicles have been back in the news with the recent vehicular accident. Uber Freight is temporarily suspending its autonomous vehicle operations — including Uber Freight. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has requested information on the use of automated technologies in the transportation of hazardous materials as it looks forward to introducing regulations permitting the project to move forward. The request for comments is meant to gather insight from industry experts and public organizations on how to best ensure these regulations consider automated vehicles in the transportation of hazardous materials.

TOW NIGHTMARES. We all know about the nightmare bills that we see with tow bills. The ATA recently completed a survey of truckers and concluded that there are reports of “outrageous overcharging” for non-consensual towing of damaged heavy-duty trucks and trailers removed from crash scenes are on the rise in some states. Non-consensual towing generally occurs when a police officer on the site of a crash contacts a towing company, often from a rotation list, to clear the roadway of damaged vehicles, trailers and even cargo. The ATA reports notes that fees for a tow can hit $50,000, although we note that the numbers are often much higher. Only 10 states have enacted legislation addressing non-consensual tows.

DRIVER SHORTAGE. The Developing Responsible Individuals for a Vibrant Economy, or DRIVE-Safe Act, was introduced in the House which might allow drivers ages 18 to 21 to driver motor vehicles. The bill proposes a two-step program for prospective young drivers to complete once they obtain a commercial driver license. The drivers would be required to log 400 hours of on-duty time and 240 hours of driving time with a licensed carrier. On the other hand the ATA’s Trucking Activity Report, states that the annualized turnover rate at large truckload fleets – those with more than $30 million in revenue – fell seven points to 88% in the fourth quarter. Turnover at small truckload fleets fell four points to 80%.. Overall the turnover rate was still 14 points higher than a year earlier.

Current Cases
Cargo

Reefer breakdown coverage under an industry standard motor truck cargo form was the subject of a coverage action in the District Court in Oregon. Although the court ultimately held that neither party was entitled to summary judgment the decision details the issues which must be addressed when evaluating the refrigeration breakdown coverage and the requirement for maintenance records. A must read for our cargo people. New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. D.M. Freight Services, Inc. 2018 WL1095553

Walk like a duck, talk like a duck, are you a duck? The 11th Circuit reversed a trial court decision that the defendant was liable as a carrier for a cargo loss when it brokered the shipment to a different motor carrier. The court held that there was a question of fact as to whether the defendant assumed liability as a carrier which made summary judgment inappropriate The court also held that the limitation of liability that that the downstream carrier had with the broker was enforceable against the shipper. As the broker carrier agreement referred to the bill of lading, which had a $1.00 per pound limitation, that was the maximum amount the shipper could recover from the downstream carrier. Essex Insurance Co. v. Barrett Moving & Storage, 2018 WL 1407067

Who is responsible for fraud when a shipment disappears after rerouting by an imposter? The Southern District in California held that there was a question of fact as to whether the defendant would be considered a carrier and whether it was subject to liability under the Carmack Amendment. The court dismissed the complaint but granted the plaintiff an opportunity to allege a claim under the Carmack Amendment, as well as a possible claim for an exception to Carmack on the theory that the loss involved an international shipment under a through bill of lading. Meadowgate Technologies v. Fiasco Enterprises, Inc., 2018 WL 1400678

Auto
The District Court in Maryland refused to permit a plaintiff to amend a complaint to allege a cause of action against a truck driver and an alter ego company when the statute of limitations had run. The court held that the plaintiff failed to show that the proposed defendants ever knew that they were going to be brought into the action and so the court would not allow the complaint to relate back to the original filing date. White v Date Trucking, 2018 WL 999963

Simply driving a truck at 70 mph and hitting someone does not give rise to a claim for punitive damages. The Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed a plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against a truck driver when there were insufficient factual allegations in the complaint to support such a claim. Elmi v. Kornilenko, 2018 WL 1157996

When the insurer is still pursuing an appeal of the decision in an underlying action the injured plaintiff is not permitted to pursue its bad faith claim against the trucker’s insurer. The Magistrate in the District Court in Colorado recommended dismissal of the suit. Kuzava v. United Fire & Casualty, 2018 WL 1152266

A truck driver who was hauling jet fuel at the time he was struck by another motor carrier lost his claim for lost earnings against the motor carrier. While the driver claimed that he was no longer able to transport hazardous materials, and had to take a job hauling other freight, the Western District of Oklahoma held that plaintiff failed to establish a compensable claim for recovery. Provo v. Bolt Express, 2018 WL1096860.

Oklahoma law does not allow for additional causes of action against a trucking company when it has already accepted vicarious liability for the actions of the driver. The District in Oklahoma dismissed those additional causes of action against the trucking company, but did allow a claim for punitive damages to continue. Bales v Green, 2018 WL 1144980

Is a trucking company liable for an accident when the pilot car struck another vehicle? The Eastern District of Louisiana held that there were questions of fact as to whether the motor carrier controlled the actions of the pilot car and denied the motor carrier’s request for summary judgment. Duplantis v Cochran, 2018 WL 1172955

Over in California the court affirmed the denial of a motion for a JNOV when the trial resulted in a defense verdict in favor of the trucking company. Unfortunately the Fourth District of California did allow for a new trial on the issue of negligence and accepted the trial court’s evaluation that the jury should clearly have reached a different decision on negligence. Gee v. Fong, 2018 WL 1044950

The Northern District of Indiana held that a trucking company that hires another trucking company to provide steel hauling services will not be responsible for injuries to the driver. The driver claimed that he was injured because the equipment provided was defective. The court held that the defendant did not exercise any significant control over the operation. Thomas v. Burnham Trucking, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39536

An indemnitee’s action against the trucker’s insurer was determined not to be ripe in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court held that while the insurer was providing a defense to the indemnitee, even under a reservation, there was no basis for a declaratory judgment action on the duty to defend. The issue of indemnity was also not ripe as the underlying action was still being litigated. The court also held that a claim for negligence against the insurance agent would fail as the indemnitee did not show that it was a third party beneficiary of the relationship between the trucker and the agent. Republic Servs. Of Pa v. Caribbean Operators, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41672

UPS was successful in its request for summary judgment in the Northern District of Mississippi on the issue of gross negligence and punitive damages in an action arising from a fatal truck accident in which UPS was a second vehicle to strike plaintiff. While the court left open the issue of whether the UPS driver was negligent it noted that if not constrained by rules deferring to plaintiff on questions of fact, it would have found in favor of UPS on that motion too. Pennington v. UPS Group Freight, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41569

A truck driver was unsuccessful in his pursuit of a claim for injuries caused when his tractor trailer was struck by a train while he was on a railroad track. The Court of Appeals in Texas upheld the jury verdict in favor of the rail carrier, concluding that it was reasonable to consider the fact that the driver did not raise the low boy before crossing the track and the fact that the driver may not have been paying attention to the oncoming train while he was trying to raise the trailer. Robertson v. Union Pacific Railroad, 2018 WL 1414498

A default judgement entered against a truck driver was vacated in the Middle District of North Carolina. The driver, who was non-English speaking and incarcerated tried to file an answer by sending a letter to counsel. The court held that the defendant should be given an opportunity to litigate liability. Thomas v. Allen Lund Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40493

Speaking of non-English speaking drivers, the Eastern District in Missouri denied a motor carrier’s request for summary judgment on a punitive damages count when the driver involved in the accident did not speak English. The court held that failure to follow motor carrier regulations and industry standards, including language requirements, could give rise to punitive damages. The punitive damages claim against the driver was dismissed. Pugh v. JunQing, 2018 WL 1406589

Even though plaintiff filed a direct action against a trucker’s general liability policy more than one year after it obtained judgment against the motor carrier, the Court of Appeals in Louisiana overturned the trial court’s dismissal of the action. The court held that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to discover whether there was a basis for an exception to the statute of limitations. Russell v. Jones, 2018 WL 1250223

Who is responsible when the tires come off the truck and strike another vehicle? In the Western District of Kentucky the plaintiff was permitted to amend the complaint to allege claims for negligence, grossly negligent supervision and punitive damages against the repair facility that had worked on the tires shortly before the loss. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Aspas, 2018 WL 1403902

What information is discoverable from a trucking company? The Supreme Court of Alabama held that a trucker would not be obligated to produce its bills of lading as they contained confidential information. However absent evidence that operations and safety manuals contained trade secrets those documents would have to be released. Ex Parte Industrial Warehouse Services, 2018 WL 1126576

What about the insurer’s documents? The District Court in Kansas was asked about the production of the claim file from a liability insurer for a trucker in the personal injury action. While the court did not specifically address this claim file it did conclude that the claim file was relevant and potentially discoverable, detailing the requirements needed to establish a basis for refusing to release the documents in the claim file. Kosjer v. Coffeeville Resources Crude Transportation, 2018 WL 1151515

The Western District in PA held that there were question of fact on whether plaintiff could recover for injuries suffered when he hit the defendant’s truck which was stopped on the roadway. While the defendant had failed to post warnings that he was stopped plaintiff may have been given enough time to stop. The Court also held that a co-driver could not be liable for negligent supervision or training of the operator. The plaintiff’s claim for negligent entrustment against the motor carrier also failed when the only evidence that the plaintiff presented was that the driver was a new driver. The court also dismissed claims for negligent maintenance, negligent selection and negligence per se. Fakes v Terry, 2018 WL 1382513

Worker’s Compensation/PIP
After years of litigation the Court of Appeals in Louisiana upheld a judgment which compelled a trucker to pay disputed premiums for owner-operators and independent contractors and dismissed the motor carrier’s claim for coverage under a contingent policy issued to the driver. The Court also held that other related entities were also liable for the owed premium. Louisiana Safety Association v. Will Transport, 2018 WL 1078161

Was a truck driver entitled to PIP benefits under the trucker’s policy for injuries suffered when there was an explosion while he was outside the truck? The Court of Appeals in Michigan held that he was not entitled to the benefits as he was not occupying the truck at the time of the explosion. Odeh v. Sentry Insurance Co., 2018 WL 1403572

The Appellate Court in Wisconsin upheld the denial of Worker’s Compensation benefits to a truck driver who claimed work related injuries because he drove a 20 foot straight truck with a solid bench and no cushioning which, together with rough suspension, caused him to bounce out of his seat and suffer lower back pain. That, coupled with an allegation that he injured when delivering heavy plant carts, was not enough to get him an award. Newbolds v. Ill, Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 2018 Il. App. 2d 170301WC-U

A worker’s compensation insurer was granted judgment that it was not obligated to provide coverage for an insured who failed to obtain worker’s compensation coverage for out of state operations. The Northern District of Illinois held that the motor carrier took its own risk when it failed to obtain the appropriate coverage for out of state operations and even a subsequent audit which indicated out of state operations would not estop the insure from denying coverage. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Worldwide Transportation Shipping Co., 2018 WL 1378177.

See you next month!

© 2018 Central Analysis Bureau