Cutrer v. TWT Transp., L.L.C.

Decision Date09 September 2020
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-807-JWD-RLB
Citation485 F.Supp.3d 677
Parties James CUTRER v. TWT TRANSPORT, L.L.C., et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

Michael Hingle, III, Michael Hingle & Associates, LLC, Slidell, LA, for James Cutrer.

Harry Joseph Philips, Jr., Erin Sayes Kenny, Lauren Rivera Hadden, Taylor Porter Brooks & Phillips LLP, Kolby Marchand, Valerie Briggs Bargas, Kinchen, Walker, Bienvenu, Bargas, Reed & Helm, Baton Rouge, LA, for TWT Transport LLC, Terry Reed.

Joseph Pierre Guichet, Shaundra M. Schudmak, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, New Orleans, LA, for Northland Insurance Company.

Harry Joseph Philips, Jr., Erin Sayes Kenny, Lauren Rivera Hadden, Taylor Porter Brooks & Phillips LLP, Baton Rouge, LA, for Rodney Dillion.

James C. Donohue, David Frederick Zuber, Donohue Patrick & Scott, PLLC, Baton Rouge, LA, for Penn-Star Insurance Company.

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JOHN W. deGRAVELLES, JUDGE

Before the Court is Northland Insurance Company's ("Northland") Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 50.) It is opposed by Plaintiff James Cutrer ("Plaintiff" or "Cutrer") (Doc. 64); defendants Terry Reed ("Reed") and TWT Transport, LLC ("TWT") (collectively "TWT/Reed") (Doc. 67); and intervenor State of Louisiana, Office of Governor, Division of Administration, Office of Risk Management ("Louisiana" or "Intervenor") (Doc. 63), (collectively "Opponents").1 Northland filed a reply memorandum in support of its motion. (Doc. 68.) The Court has considered the law, the facts in the record, and the arguments and submissions of the parties, and, for the reasons which follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an accident which occurred on September 25, 2017, near Interstate I-10 westbound in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (Doc. 36, § IV.) The essential facts surrounding the accident are largely undisputed. (Doc. 50-2 at 1; Doc. 63 at 1-2; Doc. 64 at 2; Doc. 67 at 1-2.) On this date, Plaintiff was working as a member of a sign crew for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development ("DOTD") on the shoulder of I-10 near the Acadian exit. (Doc. 11, § 7; Doc. 75-7 at 40–42.2 ) At the time of the accident, a 2005/2006 Freightliner tractor ("Freightliner") being driven by Rodney Dillion ("Dillion") was towing a mobile unit westbound on I-10 near where Plaintiff was working. Dillion was employed by TWT. TWT is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Mississippi. (Doc. 50-4 at 10-11; Doc. 63-2; Doc. 64-3.) The mobile unit being towed was an 8’ X 20’ X 12’ box structure attached to a four wheel trailer frame which was originally a "communications building" which Reed had converted to a portable, handicapped mobile bathroom for use by his disabled son, Wesley Reed, who, at the time, was working near Houston, Texas. (Doc. 50-3 at 3-4; Doc. 50-4 at 41–43, 60. See also Doc. 75-4, responses 1 and 2.) It is described by Northland as "a handicapped restroom facility on wheels." (Doc. 50-2 at 3). The Court will refer to it as the "mobile bathroom". The Freightliner tractor and the mobile bathroom were owned by Reed individually. (Doc. 50-5; Doc. 50-3 at 3–4; Doc. 50-4 at 17, 36, 41–43.)

Reed and three employees of TWT (Rodney Dillion, Sherry Shaw and Jerome Peterson) were traveling from Mississippi, where Reed lived, to Houston, Texas. Part of TWT's business involved moving manufactured homes for FEMA and others following natural disasters. (Doc. 50-4 at 11–13.) While Northland claims that this trip was purely a personal mission (see, e.g. , Doc. 50-1 at 1; Doc. 50-2 at 4 (citing Doc. 50-3 at 3–4; Doc. 50-4 at 41–43, 72–73)), this is contested by the Opponents who point the Court to testimony suggesting that the trip had a dual purpose: to bring the mobile unit to Houston where Reed's son lived, but also, to move manufactured homes in Texas (Doc. 63 at 5-6 (citing Doc. 50-4 at 80–83; Doc. 50-6 at 78–79)).

Reed had originally intended to use a 2001 International Tractor ("International") to make the trip but was unable to do so because of a broken water pump on the vehicle. (Doc. 50-4 at 61–62.) The International was a covered auto insured under the Northland policy. (Doc. 50-7 at 26.) Because the International was disabled, Reed decided to use the Freightliner, a vehicle owned by him individually. (Doc. 50-4 at 61–62.) The Freightliner was not listed on the policy. (Doc. 50-7 at 26.)

Prior to the accident, Reed and Dillion were in the Freightliner and Shaw and Peterson were in an escort truck accompanying the Freightliner. Dillion took over driving the Freightliner when Reed became ill and left the vehicle near Denham Springs in order to get medical attention. (Doc. 50-4 at 56.) As the Freightliner approached the Acadian Thruway exit, the mobile bathroom detached from the tractor and travelled towards Plaintiff, who was working near the highway, and struck a parked DOTD vehicle. (Doc. 50-4 at 73–74.) Plaintiff was injured when he jumped out of the path of the oncoming mobile bathroom. He now sues for injuries and damages allegedly caused by the accident and the fault of Reed, Dillion and TWT. (Doc. 36.) The State intervened to recover worker's compensation benefits paid to and on behalf of Plaintiff as well as for property damage sustained by its damaged vehicle. (Docs. 11 and 59.)

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Freightliner was negligently operated by Dillion and, in addition, that Reed was negligent in attaching and securing the mobile bathroom to the Freightliner; in negligently hiring, training and supervising Dillion; and in negligently entrusting the vehicle to him. (Doc. 36 ¶¶ V, VI, XI and XIV. See also Doc. 50-2 at 3.) Louisiana, as Plaintiff's employer, provided workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Plaintiff and has intervened to recover same.

TWT is a limited liability company incorporated in Mississippi. (Docs. 60-3 and 63-2.) Its members are Tammy Ladner and Terry Reed. (Id. ) Northland's commercial automobile liability insurance policy at issue ("Policy") is found at Doc. 50-7 at 3–74. The named insured is "TWT Transport; Terry Reed and Tammy Ladner DBA." (Doc. 50-7 at 4, 9, 24, 26.) The policy lists the "Legal Entity" of the named insured as "Individual". (Doc. 50-7 at 24.) The Policy's Schedule of Automobiles" lists a "2001 International Tractor and any non-owned trailer while attached to a scheduled power unit." (Doc. 50-7 at 26; see also Doc. 50-2 at 4-5) The policy does not list or mention the Freightliner.

Northland moves for summary judgment arguing that the Policy did not provide coverage to TWT or Reed at the time of the accident because, it maintains, neither the Freightliner nor the mobile bathroom were insured under the policy. (Doc. 50 at 1-2.)

The policy included a MCS-90 endorsement wherein Northland agreed to pay 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 Act of 1980 regardless of whether or not ... such negligence occurs on any route or in any territory authorized to be served by the insured or elsewhere." (Doc. 50-2 at 5 n.24)

The Policy also covers "[a]ny ‘auto’ " you do not own while used with the permission of the owner as a temporary substitute for a covered ‘auto’ that is out of service because of its: a. Breakdown ..." (Doc 68 at 2 n.2 (citing Doc. 50-7 at 29).) The Northland policy also extends covered auto status to "any trailers you don't own while attached to" any specifically described power unit (Doc. 68 at 5 n.9 (citing Doc. 50-7 at 28, Symbol 67))3 and "trailers with a load capacity of 2000 pounds or less designed primarily for travel on public roads." (id. at n.10 (citing to Doc. 50-7 at 29).) "Auto" is defined as a "land motor vehicle, ‘trailer’ or semitrailer designed for travel on public roads" and "trailer" as "a semitrailer or a dolly used to convert a semitrailer into a trailer." (id. at n.11 (citing Doc. 50-7 at 39 and 41).) "Auto" does not include "mobile equipment" (id. at n. 12 (citing Doc. 50-7 at 39)) which includes "any of the following types of land vehicles, including any attached machinery or equipment:

1. Bulldozers, farm machinery, forklifts and other vehicles designed for use principally off public roads; ...
6. Vehicles not described in Paragraphs 1., 2., 3. or 4. above maintained primarily for purposes other than transportation of persons or cargo...."

(id. at n.13 (citing Doc. 50-7 at 40-41)).

Although "mobile equipment" is excluded from the definition of "auto", another part of the Policy provides:

If Liability Coverage is provided by this coverage form, the following types of vehicles are also covered ‘autos’ for Liability Coverage: ...
2. "Mobile equipment" while being carried or towed by a covered "auto".

(Doc. 50-7 at 29.)

II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Northland advances three main reasons why it does not provide coverage for the subject accident. First, it maintains that "neither the 2005/2006 Freightliner nor the mobile unit were specifically described vehicles as required to be ‘covered autos’ under the Policy." (Doc. 50 at 1-2; Doc 50-2 at 6-7.) Nor does the mobile bathroom unit qualify for coverage as a trailer under the terms of the policy. (Doc. 50-2 at 5–7.)

Second, "although the Policy includes an MCS-90 endorsement that provides indemnification for a judgment against Northland's named insured under certain circumstances regardless of whether or not the motor vehicle is specifically described in the policy, the MCS-90 endorsement does not apply here, argues Northland, because the Freightliner was not being used in a for-hire capacity at the time of the incident." (Doc. 50 at 2; see also Doc. 50-2 at 8–10.)

Third, in its reply brief, Northland contends that the Policy did not provide coverage on the Freightliner as a temporary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Russell v. Escobar
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • January 13, 2022
    ...625 F.3d at 247 (internal citations omitted). Whether the MCS-90 endorsement covers a given accident is a matter of federal law. Cutrer, 485 F.Supp.3d at 684 Coleman, 625 F.3d at 244). To determine the scope of coverage provided by the MCS-90, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fift......
  • Barback v. Fisher
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • March 30, 2022
    ... ... [ 1 ] ... filed by Bryan Fisher (“Fisher”) and Bryan D ... Fisher, LLC (the “Firm”) (collectively, ... “Defendants”). Defendants seek a protective order ... original) ... [ 60 ] See La. R.S. § ... 12:1304. See also Cutrer v. TWT Transport, L.L.C. , ... 485 F.Supp.3d 677, 687-88 (M.D. La. Sept. 9, 2020); Coco ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT