Canal Insurance v. Coleman, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22658

Undisputed facts: Briggs, trucker for PS Transport, backed a bobtail truck into his driveway and collided with the Colemans' car; the truck had no trailer attached at the time.
Truck was leased to PS Transport under Briggs's employment, so Briggs's truck was not an “owned automobile” under the PS Policy.
PS Policy included a federally mandated MCS-90 endorsement intended to ensure minimum financial responsibility for motor carriers transporting property in interstate commerce.
Coleman sued Briggs and PS Transport in Mississippi state court; Canal Insurance Company filed a federal declaratory-judgment action seeking to determine coverage under the PS Policy.
District court entered default against PS Transport and granted Canal’s summary judgment; Coleman moved for summary judgment opposing Canal.
The core issue on appeal is whether the MCS-90 endorsement covers the accident, given the parties stipulated Briggs was not engaged in transportation of property at the time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the MCS-90 endorsement cover the accident here?	Coleman argues MCS-90 applies to any vehicle subject to the Act.	Canal argues MCS-90 applies only when the vehicle is transporting property.	No; MCS-90 covers only transportation of property and Briggs was not transporting property.

Minter v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 423 F.3d 460 (5th Cir. 2005) (MCS-90 context and enforceability as a suretyship)
Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 501 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2007) (MCS-90/B scope—transportation in the United States and property)
Wells v. Gulf Ins. Co., 484 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2007) (MCS-90 purpose to protect the public when used for interstate trucking)
Canal Ins. Co. v. Distrib. Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d 489 (4th Cir. 2003) (MCS-90 trip-specific/transportation context (remedial purpose))
Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co., 868 F.2d 357 (10th Cir. 1989) (Remedial purpose of federal minimum-financial-responsibility regime)