If I recall right, the most that they would have needed to carry would likely have been 750k CSL if the cargo was classified as Property (nonhazardous). I’d have to doublecheck the classification of asphalt, however, as it might have required the 1M CSL limit. Check a MCS-90 form for the required liability and classification.
Seen this on the news when it happened, what a mess. Kind of sounds like Travelers knows there is some coverage under these other 2 polcies if they are asking for a court ruling early on.
I think Travelers is being proactive in bringing a declaratory action to the courts now, rather than waiting until some plaintiff attorney(s) get involved and muck up the coverage sitation. Smart legal move.
It’s an interpleader, not a declaratory judgment. Docket No. 2:11-cv-01567-JFC. That means they admit coverage and want to pay the limits but they don’t know who should get the money because there’s not enough to satisfy all the claims. It has nothing to do with waiting until some plaintiff attorney gets involved to “muck up the coverage situation” whatever that means.
What do you think? That by filing a dec action that would somehow prevent plaintiff’s attorneys from getting involved to contest a coverage dispute? That’s not how it works.
A contractor working on a US highway, with no Umbrella or Excess liability? there are additional limits out there.. TIC likely carries the XS as well and doesn’t want to have to tap that additional $20 mill or whatever it is.
This was not a contractor working on the turnpike. It was a truck carrying roofing asphalt to a job site. The other 2 policies are a GL policy and an inland marine policy. It looks like the MCS filing only required a $1 million limit, not $5 million. GL would exclude this exposure as well.
No ICC filings required for higher limits?
If I recall right, the most that they would have needed to carry would likely have been 750k CSL if the cargo was classified as Property (nonhazardous). I’d have to doublecheck the classification of asphalt, however, as it might have required the 1M CSL limit. Check a MCS-90 form for the required liability and classification.
Seen this on the news when it happened, what a mess. Kind of sounds like Travelers knows there is some coverage under these other 2 polcies if they are asking for a court ruling early on.
I think Travelers is being proactive in bringing a declaratory action to the courts now, rather than waiting until some plaintiff attorney(s) get involved and muck up the coverage sitation. Smart legal move.
It’s an interpleader, not a declaratory judgment. Docket No. 2:11-cv-01567-JFC. That means they admit coverage and want to pay the limits but they don’t know who should get the money because there’s not enough to satisfy all the claims. It has nothing to do with waiting until some plaintiff attorney gets involved to “muck up the coverage situation” whatever that means.
What do you think? That by filing a dec action that would somehow prevent plaintiff’s attorneys from getting involved to contest a coverage dispute? That’s not how it works.
A contractor working on a US highway, with no Umbrella or Excess liability? there are additional limits out there.. TIC likely carries the XS as well and doesn’t want to have to tap that additional $20 mill or whatever it is.
This was not a contractor working on the turnpike. It was a truck carrying roofing asphalt to a job site. The other 2 policies are a GL policy and an inland marine policy. It looks like the MCS filing only required a $1 million limit, not $5 million. GL would exclude this exposure as well.