*2 RIVES, Before AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Judges. Circuit opinion Boyle appended adopted opinion Court, as the of this judgment and the Affirmed.

APPENDIX hearing

This matter came on for be- fore the the motion of the de- fendant, Hartford Accident and Indem- nity Company, summary judgment.

These consolidated actions arise July collision on or about 11:45 a. inm. Natchi- Parish, Louisiana, toches of a 1958 In- tractor, pulling ternational Truck poles loaded with under contract with the C. R. Knotts and a by driven vehicle one T. Manieri Joseph Louis Zweifel which Al- phonse, decedents, passengers. Bradley, Owen the Law Offices The tractor was driven David O’Halloran, Plotkin, Steven R. Frank Pharris, Charlie Jr., Orleans, La., Alphonse New and Kinner, Transport M. Kinner d/b/a others. Company. Maloney, La., Orleans, Charles R. New argue for Zweifel and others. issued Kinner mov- Stahl, B. Curtis R. Boisfon- er, to be effective 12:01 a. m. Feb- taine, Orleans, La., New for Manieri. ruary 25, 1968, provided coverage for Bodet, Cassisa, Richard L. Paul original V. policy accident. The was Bernard, Cassisa, Micholet & Orle- produced New and offered in evidence de- La., ans, for Hartford In- the insured thereun- demnity Co. der.1 support motion, 1. In mary judgment; however, form 110D copy proved annexed a certified long-haul to be no more than a policy question. copy challeng trucking exclusion in certain ed designated because the areas, were, none of which indicated Endorsement 111D fact, ef company or relevant fect, although the attached to the instant action. Counsel for Kin- $ copy bore 110D. A ner, second certified motion, the second on this policy indicating produced Endorsement copy Kinner’s # 110D was then furnished following Hartford. includes plaintiffs urged Counsel for the ments : typographical error in the first describing Form 45—fleet precluding created an issue of fact (neither sum- insured vehicles the 1958 trae- Studiously avoiding on the denies tractor. the exclu- mover ground specifically ex- sion of on the lack based plain- insurance, counsel for the cludes C, coverages tiffs, A “while memoranda any memoranda, advanced several theories automobile is used *3 by the insured under alone trailer hired which the tractor owned or 1958 plaintiffs the like and insurance be covered. not covered *** ”2 classify acquired newly company; the a tractor as vehicle, automobile, replacement a acci- pole involved trailer temporary substitute vehicle. and/or purchased Kinner dent herein was Assuming, arguendo, that such bases prior approximately to the four months coverage tenable, cov- the are Kinner date of accident.3 the erage is nonetheless because deposition the that under oath on theory under no is the insured trailer an trailer had used been vehicle, (c) specifically and exclusion truck times with a 1965 International that failure insure such tractor,4 and attached operates coverage on trailer to cancel at International truck tractor the uninsured vehicle while the of the accident.5 trailer is thereto. attached disputed It for the not Plaintiffs, (c), policy’s faced with exclusion that fleet sought then Endorse- names neither nor under trailer 77, ment Railroad insured Commission 1958 International trailer as Texas Further, Form. Mr. himself That endorsement vehicles.6 Kinner pertinent part, pole trailer admitted oath that under the Hart was NEVER insured promises of and testimony gave policy.7 ford effective this endorsement shall be deposition further earlier that only his. while automobiles covered strengthened premise the trail that being operated this within are covered, question er in was not boundaries State 26, 20-27, page that he lines admitted coverage granted by this endorse- something hap after he knew that automobiles, also pened occurred, and accident had belonging un- to or trucks and trailers agent in a futile he called his insurance der the the named insured direction attempt get particularly identified midnight truck effective at being used are while same night request before. This carrying property in the business * * the aft made between 2:30 2:40 compensation for hire or ernoon accident.8 injuries] [for oper- policy through term of such said made Counsel herein trailers with- ation of such trucks and arguments as to several 56, Deposition page 4. M. therein). of W. tor nor the trailer is scheduled 8-16. 2) lines payable clause Form 112A —loss Bank, naming the Lufkin National 56, Kinner, page Deposition 5. M. of W. may appear. its interest lines 21-24. 3) Form aforementioned HOD —the 592470, 6. “Fleet Sched- desig- long exclusion of haul truckmen’s ule,” Form 45. nated areas. 4) Form 77—motor 56, Kinner, page Deposition 7. M. of W. Commission. ment —Texas Railroad deposition, 21-25; also same lines see protection Family Form 230 — 55, 16-20, 54, 25, pages 11. 1. 11. motorists. uninsured 1-4. paragraph (c), policy. Exclusions, page 3, 2. Kinner, page Deposition M. Deposition Kinner, page 11. 18-21. page 56, 24, 25; lines lines 1-3. only Tex- of the State of in the boundaries be effective while automobiles operated as.” are Tex- the boundaries of the State of provision reliance on this Plaintiffs’ urge plaintiffs-appellants as.” The patently mis- 77 is of Endorsement are entitled to a decision clearly placed, limitation insistence that the ambiguous language, states, without being op- while to claims the vehicles are apply to does not this endorsement erated within the State ille- vehicle outside gal should reformed. of the State of Texas.9 language pol- face of the clear Railroad Commis- We think that Texas icy, parties which is the law between the re- sion Endorsement 77 conforms *4 thereto, spect with Texas Statute read accident, place light in of of “motor the definition policy. 1(g) the Hartford of carrier” in Section same stat- dismissing nity ON PETITIONS (Signed) EJB, Sr. suit and therefore no same is coverage provided Under the United States District Eastern District [Edward this defendant should be hereby claims policy in evidence there granted. FOR the motion of the summary judgment Boyle, for the accident REHEARING of Louisiana] Sr. Indem de Act, ute. ticularly in tion public shall be construed “§ Further, we doubt whether motor power Part X “(b) beyond That definition contains highway U.S.C. II of it carriers in interstate to (1) Nothing X part: Application extend its the State’s light § in this State.” to Interstate to operation ^[*] affect the boundaries, par- seq. provisions (cid:127) ^[*] regulation Commerce commerce “over That require- chapter powers limita- -X- Act taxation the several States to to in- a motor carrier do an authorize case, plaintiffs- the first entitled highways trastate business appellants complain ref- there no any State, or with interfere the ex- to opinion adop- erence the District Court clusive exercise each State of the deciding ted this Court issue regulation power of of intrastate com- raised both courts Ann. that Vernon’s high- motor merce carriers Texas Civil 911b, Article Statutes Sec- ways thereof.” mandatory tion makes it plaintiffs-appel holdWe surance cover “claims for loss or to have the lants are not entitled damages personal injury of, from or loss arising reformed cover claims injury property operations beyond carrier the motor * * * term policies, of said the boundaries of the State of arising out actual petitions It is ordered that for re- carrier,” such motor while Texas Railroad filed the above entitled and Commission Motor Vehicle Endorsement numbered cause and the same are here- Form 77 attached to here volved that, promises of this endorsement shall Denied. memorandum, In his limiting coun- enees the ef- plaintiff, Alphonse, sel operations en- cited this fect thereof dorsement, selectively excluding all refer- State of Texas.