A federal district court in Pennsylvania has ruled that a tractor-trailer insured under a "non-trucking" insurance policy did not cover an accident involving the tractor-trailer.
The Case
Jason Foster, a commercial truck driver, was involved in a tractor-trailer accident with Joseph Hallman. Mr. Foster owned his tractor-trailer, which he leased to Bloom Services, Inc., a motor carrier. At the time of the accident, Mr. Foster had been dispatched by Bloom Services to pick up a load of material for Bloom Services.
First Guard Insurance Company, which insured Mr. Foster and his tractor-trailer under a "non-trucking" policy, sought a judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Mr. Foster with respect to any claims brought by Mr. Hallman arising from or relating to the motor vehicle accident between Mr. Foster and Mr. Hallman, and that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Bloom Services.
First Guard moved for summary judgment.
The First Guard Policy
The First Guard policy defined:
non-trucking
to mean when the truck was:
operating solely for personal use unrelated to any business activity
The policy excluded coverage for any truck:
being operated for an economic or business purposebeing operated under the expressed or implied management, control, or dispatch . . . of a motor carrier
or
attached to a trailer loaded with property of any typeThe District Court's Decision
The district court granted summary judgment on First Guards' claims for declaratory judgment against Mr. Foster and Bloom Services.
In its decision, the district court explained that the First Guard policy explicitly stated that it did not apply to a vehicle "being operated for an economic or business purpose" or "being operated under the expressed or implied management, control, or dispatch . . . of a motor carrier." The district court added that it was "undisputed" that Mr. Foster "had been dispatched by Bloom Services" and had been "acting under the authority and control, and for the express business purposes of Bloom [Services]" when the crash had occurred.
In light of these uncontested facts, the district court ruled, no reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Foster's vehicle was covered by the First Guard policy when Mr. Foster was involved in the accident with Mr. Hallman. Because Mr. Foster's vehicle was not covered by the First Guard policy at the time of the accident as a matter of law, First Guard had no duty to defend or indemnify Mr. Foster or Bloom Services under the "clear and unambiguous language" of its policy, the district court concluded.
The case is First Guard Ins. Co. v. Bloom Services, Inc., No. 3:17-59 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2018). Attorneys involved include: For FIRST GUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff: Brian L. Shepard, LEAD ATTORNEY, Pion Nerone Girman Winslow & Smith, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA; Michael F. Nerone, LEAD ATTORNEY, Pion, Nerone, Girman, Winslow & Smith, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA. For JOSEPH W. HALLMAN, Defendant: Gregory S. Olsavick, Edgar Snyder & Associates, Altoona, PA; James R. Huff, II, Sullivan, Forr, Stokan & Huff, Altoona, PA. For ARTISAN & TRUCKERS CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant: Jeffrey A. Ramaley, Zimmer Kunz, Pittsburgh, PA.