DE Superior Court determines that insurance company must indemnify defendant based on MCS-90B.
This is a coverage matter based on an automobile liability case. The underlying automobile case involved the transportation of wedding guests in a “Jolly Trolley” that resulted in a crash, leading to severe injuries for many of the passengers. The contracts were entered into with a company named Transit, which rented the vehicles from a company named Transportation. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (PICC) provided a policy for Transit and a company named Limo (not truly involved in the accident) for only scheduled vehicles. The vehicles involved in the accident were not scheduled vehicles per the policy. Ultimately, Transit settled with the injured parties in the accident. Transit argued that it should be extended coverage by PICC based on the Elite Endorsement in the policy and the MCS-90B, which is a federal endorsement. Ultimately, in this case of first impression, the court determined that The Elite Endorsement did not provide indemnity coverage to Transit but the MCS-90B did, despite Transit not being named on the endorsement. Not only is this a case of first impression, but this is a trial court decision. It is anticipated that additional litigation regarding this issue may develop. Stay tuned.
Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.