A federal appeals court on Thursday affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of a trucking risk retention group over an accident caused by a blown tire, holding there was insufficient evidence to establish the truck’s owner or driver was responsible.

In March 2018, a tractor-trailer owned by Las Cruces, New Mexico-based MVT Services LLC and driven by an employee passed Tyrea Arceneaux on an interstate highway as she commuted to her home in Lafayette, Louisiana, according to the ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in Tyrea Arceneaux v. American Trucking & Transportation Insurance Co. Risk Retention Group; MVT Services, LLC, doing business as Mesilla Valley Transportation.

Suddenly, part of the tractor-trailer’s backmost, driver’s side tire failed or blew out, and the dislocated tread struck the front driver’s side of Ms. Arceneaux’s vehicle, causing a severe injury to her knee that required surgery, the ruling said.

Ms. Arceneaux filed suit against MVT and the Missoula, Montana-based America Trucking & Transportation Insurance Risk Retention Group in U.S. District Court in Lafayette, claiming the truck driver and company had failed to properly maintain and control the truck and that it had been operated recklessly.

Ms. Arceneaux presented evidence that included a repair order describing a “blown” tire attributed to “underinflation.”

The district court granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the case and was affirmed by a three-judge appeals court panel.

The appeals court said Ms. Arceneaux “has not raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the tractor trailer’s tire had a defect that presented an unreasonable risk of harm.”

“The post-incident repair order raised a potential issue as to whether the tire was defective because of ‘underinflation.’ But even assuming the underinflation made the tire dangerously defective, there is no evidence to suggest what or who caused the under inflation,” the ruling said.

Ms. Arceneaux also fails to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the trucking company and driver “knew, or should have known, of any such defects,” and offers no evidence that any alleged defect could have been reasonably discovered, the ruling said, in affirming the lower court’s decision.

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

Earlier this month, a CNA Financial Corp. unit prevailed in a dispute with Hallmark Specialty Insurance Co. over coverage in connection with a tractor-trailer accident.