Forkwar v. Progressive Northern Insurance, 910 F. Supp. 2d 815

Accident on November 26, 2004 injured Forkwar; Mahdi drove a 1987 Kenworth tractor not listed on the Progressive Northern policy.
J&J Logistics named insured under Progressive Northern; Mahdi not an insured or dispatched by J&J; MCS-90 endorsement attached to policy.
Prior Maryland state court action resulted in judgment in favor of J&J Logistics on a respondeat superior theory; court ruled Mahdi not an employee and not acting within J&J’s scope.
Empire Insurance litigation (federal) sought to collect the judgment; district court held Business Use exclusion applied; Fourth Circuit affirmed that MCS-90 covers only the named insured.
Instant case: Defendants moved for summary judgment based on res judicata and MCS-90 scope; Plaintiff moved to stay; court denies stay and grants summary judgment for Progressive Northern and Progressive Classic.
Court also notes FMCSA Guidance (Oct. 5, 2005) interpreting “insured” as the named insured, and adopts it as persuasive authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Res judicata bars coverage claims	Forkwar argues case involves different issues/sponsors.	Progressive Northern relies on final state judgment and privity to bar relitigation.	Yes; state court judgment precludes subsequent coverage claims against Progressive Northern.
Scope of MCS-90 endorsement	Mahdi should be considered an insured under MCS-90.	Insured under MCS-90 is the named motor carrier; Mahdi not named.	MCS-90 covers only the named insured.
Effect of FMCSA Guidance interpreting 'insured'	Guidance should be ignored in favor of broader reading.	Guidance is persuasive and aligns with regulations.	FMCSA Guidance persuasive; supports named-insured interpretation.
Progressive Classic liability	Progressive Classic should bear some responsibility.	Progressive Classic had no coverage for J&J on the accident date.	Progressive Classic entitled to summary judgment.

Canal Ins. Co. v. Distrib. Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d 488 (4th Cir. 2003) (MCS-90 endorsem ent creates public-safety suretyship coverage for named carrier)
Ooida Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Williams, 579 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2009) (MCS-90 coverage limited to named insureds)
Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 665 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D. Va. 2009) (MCS-90 coverage limited to named insureds; guidance on statutory framework)
Thompson, 665 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D. Va. 2009) (Affirmative interpretation that MCS-90 applies to named insureds only)
Wellman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 496 F.2d 131 (8th Cir. 1974) (Early interpretation of insured under MCS-90 context)
Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co. of D.C. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 196 F.2d 597 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (Precedent on insurance definitions and coverage scope)