If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? What is the sound of one hand clapping? And…if a tractor-trailer is empty, is it still engaged in interstate trucking?
A civil lawsuit making its way through the federal appeals circuit raised this very question. It appears judges have come up with very different answers in the case of Prime Insurance Company v. Wright.
It all began with trucker Decardo Humphrey getting into a wreck while traveling from South Holland, Illinois, to Fort Wayne, Indiana, for Riteway Trucking. The trailer was empty at the time. Darnell Wright was reportedly injured in the collision and sued Riteway and its insurance company, Prime Insurance.
As many truckers know, an MCS-90 endorsement allows injured parties to collect from the insurance carrier when the general policy doesn’t cover the accident. Wright brought suit and was awarded $400,000 under MCS-90. Needless to say, Prime Insurance didn’t want to pay and argued the MCS-90 rider only covered the transportation of goods and materials across state lines and borders. Because Humphrey was traveling empty — on route to pick up his next load — Prime claimed he and Riteway were not covered.
As we saw with legal battles such as California’s AB5 law and various courtroom squabbles, sometimes you need the right judge to get a favorable ruling. Prime, unhappy with the result and having to fork over $400K, sued Wright and won a judgment letting the insurance carrier off the hook. Prime’s position was later affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
But the Eighth Circuit took a look at this conundrum and decided the “totality of the circumstances” is what matters. Because Humphrey was in the midst of his routine, picking up and dropping off trailers, he was performing interstate commerce duties in theory — if not practice — because there was a “fixed intent.”
“All we need to know is whether the collision occurred during an interstate journey to deliver freight or one of the steps mentioned in (the statute],” Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote. “The answer to that question is ‘yes.’”
Faced with doling out the $400K judgment, freight transportation advocacy groups such as the Trucking Industry Defense Association want the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case and put the differing judicial opinions to rest. So, is tractor-trailer hauling nothing engaged in interstate commerce? It is for now.
Sources:
https://newrepublic.com/article/175340/supreme-court-trucking-interstate-commerce
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/prime-insurance-company-v-wright/
Leave a Comment