Double Trouble: No Summary Judgment Where Trucking Company May Qualify as Insured Under Multiple Policies

Posted by

Canal Ins. Co. v. Great W. Cas. Co.,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133344, 1-2
(D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2013)


In this is a declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff Canal Insurance Company  (Canal) sought insurance coverage from the defendant, Great West Casualty Company (Great West), relating to an underlying trucking accident. In its complaint Canal admitted that the Canal policy provides coverage, but alleges that such coverage is excess to the primary coverage provided by the Great West policy. Great West moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no coverage obligations for liabilities arising from the underlying accident.

The underlying accident involved Douglas Amundson Trucking (DAT) which arranged for TB Trucking (TB) to pick up and deliver a load of cargo for a third party. TB caused the accident while delivering this load. TB was insured by Canal, and was driving a 2007 Kenworth truck that it was in the process of purchasing under a lease-to-purchase agreement with DAT. DAT was insured at the time of the accident by Great West.

The court found that the accident was covered by the Canal policy because the vehicle was listed as a covered auto, and TB was the named insured.  However, the court denied Great West’s motion for summary judgment because there were genuine questions of fact as to whether TB qualified as an insured under the Great West policy.  Specifically, there were questions as to whether or not the Kenworth truck qualified as a hired vehicle by DAT.