The Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Levi Owens
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s declaratory judgment that Cincinnati Insurance Company has no duty to defend or indemnify employee-driver Wayne Hunt in an underlying South Carolina wrongful-death action because Cincinnati received untimely notice of the suit and suffered material prejudice. The court also upheld the denial of the estate’s motion to stay, the refusal to allow an amended answer asserting an MCS-90 counterclaim, and the grant of summary judgment to Cincinnati.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether the federal MCS-90 endorsement obligates an insurer to pay a judgment obtained against an unnamed permissive driver (or other non-named insured) or only judgments entered against the motor-carrier named in the insurance policy.
Circuit Positions
MCS-90 applies only to judgments against the named insured motor carrier; no coverage for unnamed drivers/permissive users.
MCS-90 reaches judgments against any insured or permissive user, including unnamed drivers.
Conflict Summary
Some circuits read the word “insured” in the MCS-90 endorsement to mean the motor-carrier specifically named in the policy, limiting the endorsement’s surety obligation to judgments entered against that named insured. Other circuits have held that the endorsement’s use of “insured” extends coverage to judgments obtained against any permissive driver or other non-named insured operating the carrier’s vehicle.