644 F. App'x 900
11th Cir.2016Background
- On Nov. 29, 2012, driver Andrii Plys (leased from Deen, LLC) struck Howard Martin-Vegue, killing him; Plys was pulling a trailer owned by ABS Freight Transportation, Inc. ("Freight") but driving a tractor marked for ABS Transport, Inc. ("Transport").
- Freight and Transport were related companies formed after a marital separation; Freight leased the trailer to Transport under an equipment lease dated Oct. 15, 2012.
- Plaintiff (National Specialty Ins. Co.) issued $1 million liability policies to both Freight and Transport; Transport’s policy limits were already paid after a settlement that exhausted Transport’s policy.
- Defendant (Martin-Vegue’s widow) sued to recover additional coverage under Freight’s policy, arguing Plys was operating on behalf of Freight (which would implicate Freight’s coverage and its MCS-90 endorsement).
- Freight’s policy excludes coverage for anyone using its autos under a written lease; Plaintiff contended Plys was excluded because the trailer was leased to Transport and Plys was driving for Transport.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff, finding undisputed evidence that Transport — not Freight — was the actual motor carrier at the time of the accident; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plys is an “insured” under Freight’s policy (lease exclusion) | Plys is excluded because he was using Freight’s trailer pursuant to a written lease to Transport | Plys was hauling the load for Freight (pre-haul ICCI paperwork shows Freight contracted) and thus is insured | Held: Plys excluded — undisputed evidence shows Transport leased tractor, trailer, and driver; written lease existed and Plys was using trailer on behalf of Transport |
| Whether pre-haul ICCI documents (Carrier Contract, Delivery Schedule) create a factual dispute over who hauled the load | These documents do not overcome evidence that Transport actually performed the haul | These documents show Freight agreed to carry the load and create triable issue | Held: ICCI paperwork does not create a genuine dispute; ICCI’s practices (double broking) and bill of lading show Transport performed the haul |
| Whether testimony by Freight/Transport principals is unreliable and requires a jury | Plaintiff: impeachment evidence alone cannot create a triable factual dispute at summary judgment | Defendant: principals altered documents and their credibility is contested | Held: Credibility challenges based on impeachment do not create a material factual dispute sufficient to avoid summary judgment |
| Whether Freight’s MCS-90 endorsement applies to obligate insurer despite policy exclusion | MCS-90 (federal) is a surety-like obligation only triggered if the policy provides no coverage and the named insured is the for-hire carrier at the time of loss | Defendant: Even if policy excludes coverage, MCS-90 should apply because Freight was the for-hire carrier | Held: MCS-90 inapplicable — Freight was not the for-hire carrier at time of accident, so endorsement does not guarantee payment |
Key Cases Cited
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Groves, 586 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.) (summary judgment review standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment legal standard)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 154 Ill.2d 90 (Illinois law: unambiguous policy terms given plain meaning)
- Yeates v. [C]arolina Cas. Ins. Co., 584 F.3d 868 (10th Cir.) (MCS-90 treated as surety; triggering conditions)
- Distribution Services, Inc. v. Canal Ins. Co., 320 F.3d 488 (4th Cir.) (MCS-90 interpretation and function)