top of page
Woodall Law Firm

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted!

September 26, 2024


CONGRATULATIONS, ALINA!




Alina Long obtained an excellent result for the insurer by prevailing on the motion for summary judgment filed in the declaratory judgment action that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify the named insured motor carrier and the truck driver against the bodily injury claims of the independent contractor co-driver who was asleep in the sleeper berth at the time of the accident.


First, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed that, for interstate transportation, to the extent the policy limits the definition of employee as set forth in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSR”), the policy’s definition is superseded by 49 CFR § 390.5. As a result, under FMCSR, the injuries to the independent contractor co-driver, who was resting in the sleeper berth during the interstate trip, are excluded from coverage by the Employer’s Liability and Fellow Employee exclusions of the motor carrier commercial auto policy. 

The opposing counsel argued that the injured co-driver was a temporary worker excluded from the policy’s definition of “employee;” however, the Court disagreed and concluded that the policy’s definition of an employee is foreclosed by the incorporation of the FMCSR by the MCS-90 Endorsement. The Court also rejected the argument that a tandem driver in the sleeper berth was not within the course and scope of his employment. 

 

Further, the Court applied the new “extrinsic evidence” standard set by the Texas Supreme Court in the Monroe case and concluded that to determine whether the duty to defend exists, it is proper to introduce extrinsic evidence that the alleged injured “passenger” was, in fact, a tandem driver for the trip.


Finally, even though the courts are sometimes hesitant to rule on the duty to indemnify before the insured’s liability is determined in the underlying lawsuit, in our case, the Court agreed that the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise negate any possibility the insurer will ever have a duty to indemnify and ruled that the insurer owed no duty to indemnify the motor carrier and the truck driver. 

 














23 views

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page