Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Insurer wins reversal in Montana trucking accident

Reprints
trucking

A policy exclusion still applies, even if the policy itself fails to meet technical requirements such as including a table of contents, a federal appeals court said Wednesday, in overturning a lower court ruling.

The case involves Belgrade, Montana-based High Country Paving Inc., which purchased liability insurance from United Fire & Casualty Co. that included commercial auto liability coverage, commercial umbrella coverage and commercial general liability coverage, according to court papers in High Country Paving, Inc. v. United Fire & Casualty Co.

In August 2016, a High-Country employee was operating a company truck and trailer when the trailer detached and hit another vehicle, killing the driver and injuring the passenger.

In settling the resulting claims, United Fire paid the combined $3 million limits of the commercial auto and umbrella policies but denied coverage under the CGL policy based on an aircraft, auto or watercraft exclusion and a multiple liability coverages limitation endorsement.

United Fire argued the aircraft, auto or watercraft exclusion applied because the injuries stemmed from the use of a vehicle pulling a loaded equipment trailer, and therefore arose out of the use of an auto.

In ensuing litigation, the U.S. District Court in Missoula, Montana, ruled in favor of High Country, holding that while its insurance contract “unambiguously” foreclosed coverage, the exclusions were unenforceable under Montana law.

The 9th Circuit asked the Montana Supreme Court to consider whether, if an insurance policy does not include either a table of contents or a notice of important provisions in violation of the state code, the insurer can still rely on unambiguous exclusions or limitations to the policy’s coverage  

In an April 12 ruling, the Montana Supreme Court agreed the exclusions could still be relied upon “where, as here, ‘invalidating such a provision would result in an increase of the risk assumed.’”

Citing that ruling, a three-judge appeals court panel, reversed the lower court, stating the aircraft, auto or watercraft exclusions “is therefore both unambiguous and enforceable.”

Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.