A towing company is not liable for a concrete pump truck that was totaled while it was being towed under an exception to the federal motor carrier regulation, says a federal court, in upholding a ruling against the truck’s insurer.

In September 2015, a driver for Chesterton, Indiana-based Masterlink Concrete Pumping LLC was driving on I-94 in Michigan when the truck malfunctioned and he pulled the truck over onto the shoulder, according to Tuesday’s ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Acuity Insurance Co. et al. v. McDonald’s Towing and Rescue Inc.

Because of darkness and the truck’s size, it was decided to wait until the following morning for Kalamazoo, Michigan-based McDonald’s to tow it. During the towing procedure the next day, however, the pump truck became detached from the tow truck, rolled over in the median and was totaled.

Masterlink insurer Sheboygan, Wisconsin-based Acuity Insurance and Masterlink filed suit in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids, Michigan, against McDonald’s seeking a $341,661 judgment in the matter.

They claimed the tow truck company was liable under the 1906 Carmack Amendment, which holds a motor carrier liable for damages to goods it transported interstate. The District Court ruled against the plaintiffs, which was unanimously affirmed by a three-judge appeals court panel.

Both courts’ rulings pointed to an exception to the Carmack Amendment for “the emergency towing of an accidentally wrecked or disabled motor vehicle.”

Acuity and Masterlink claimed there was not an emergency “because the tow truck was left unattended on the shoulder of the road overnight and there were no complaints or orders to move it from law enforcement,” said the ruling.

“The plaintiffs view the definition of ‘emergency’ too rigidly,” said the appeals court panel, however. “The defendant did not leave the truck overnight due to a lack of urgency, rather…the tow was postponed until morning because the truck was larger than expected and it was dark outside and difficult to see.

“The fact that the truck was not removed within minutes, or even hours, of its breakdown does not negate the emergency nature of the situation. Instead, we think that the crucial point is one emphasized by the district court, which is the truck had to be moved – towing it was not optional.

“Thus, we conclude that the tow job was an ‘emergency’ as that word is ordinarily understood,” said the ruling in holding that the exception to the Carmack Amendment was applicable and affirming the lower court’s ruling in favor of the tow truck operator.

In April, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court and, citing the Carmack Amendment, ruled an insurer cannot recover funds paid on behalf of a policyholder for damaged cargo because the extent of the damage was not adequately specified.