Question
How many of you have thought to ask if a carrier, whose equipment you are about to drive off in, is carrying insurance on that equipment covering both you and the equipment? Would you continue to drive off in that equipment knowing you are held liable, as the driver, for whatever happens? Your fault or not? This driver had not considered this either and is now paying a heavy price.
Barrentine did not assert a claim of estoppel under section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes. The estoppel issue was raised by Anita Enfinger on behalf of the estate. General Security objected to Enfinger’s argument on the ground that the estate lacked standing to assert the claim. This objection should have been sustained. The conditions imposed by section 627.426(2) apply only to the immediate parties to an insurance contract. See Atlantic Cas. and Fire Ins. Co. v. National Am. Ins. Co., 915 F. Supp. 1218 (M.D. Fla. 1996). These conditions are not enforceable by a third party, merely because that party may have an interest in the outcome of a coverage dispute. Enfinger’s estate had no legal right to take the place of the named insured and therefore could not insist on compliance with the statute.
The final ground stated in support of the judgment is that coverage was established as a matter of federal law. In support of this holding, the trial court relied on Form MCS-90 which provides, in essence, that the premium paid on a policy to insure a fleet of trucks also covers a truck not specifically listed in the policy if the truck is involved in an accident in the course of an interstate shipment. See 49 U.S.C. §13906(f); 49 C.F.R. §387.15. We conclude that the trial court stated the federal law correctly, but that there is no evidence the driver was using the truck in the interstate shipment of goods at the time of the collision. Form MCS-90 is authorized by the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 and its purpose is to ensure that all interstate trucking companies have adequate insurance for anyinjury or death caused by their trucks. The form, which is incorporated into the policyin this case, states in pertinent part:
In consideration of the premium stated in the policy to which this endorsement is attached, the insurer (the company) agrees to pay, within the limits of liability described herein, any final judgment recovered against the insured for public liability resulting from negligence in the operation, maintenance or use of motor vehicles subject to the financial responsibility requirements of sections 29 and 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 regardless of whether or not each motor vehicle is specifically described in the policy and whether or not such negligence occurs on any route or in any territory authorized to be served by the insured or elsewhere. 49 C.F.R. §387.15 (emphasis added). Form MCS-90 applies only to interstate transportation and does not apply to intrastate transportation. See Branson v. MGA Ins. Co., Inc., 673 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Century Indem. Co. v. Carlson, 133 F. 3d 591 (8th Cir. 1998).
In the present case, Jordan was traveling in the truck from Graceville, Florida to Southport, Florida to pick up a trailer. He was then to return to Graceville with the trailer and to make a second trip to Southport to pick up another trailer. The trailers 9 would be inspected to discover if any repairs were necessary. If repairs needed to be done, they would last no more than a day and a half. Then, the trailers were to be hauled to Alabama to pick up sod for transport to a destination in Georgia. The collision occurred while Jordan was on his way to Southport to pick up the first trailer. It is true that the truck was to be used several days later to haul a trailer to Alabama, but that does not make the initial trip from Graceville to Southport an interstate trip. The issue is not whether a truck might be used for an interstate shipment in the future. That much could be said of nearly any tractor-trailer rig.
Rather, the issue is whether the injury in question occurred while the truck was operating in interstate commerce. Here, there is little doubt that the collision occurred while Jordan was operating the truck within the state. It follows that the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 does not afford statutory insurance coverage.
For these reasons, we conclude that General Security is not obligated to provide insurance coverage for the loss sustained as a result of the collision. The decision of the trial court is reversed with instructions to render a judgment for General Security.
Reversed.
ALLEN, C.J., and BENTON, J., CONCUR.
Did you ever think to ask if the carrier carries insurance?
******************************
[This message was edited by Retread (Rose) on October 01, 2002 at 18:55.]
Answer
Thank You Rose for Posting this
I think this should go up on the Drivers Roundtable for ALL to read . . .
Thanks, RJ at Ol' Blue, USA®
Answer
There must be more to this story than just this. Looks like the Ins. was trying to get out of paying off and Fl. courts let them get away with it.