These cases arise from a collision involving three tractor-trailers under contract with B-H Transfer Company and being driven in tandem by independent contractors. The last vehicle in line was owned by Dixon Trucking Company, Inc. and was driven by Harry Mitchell Dixon. That tractor-trailer allegedly struck the rear of the middle vehicle, forcing it into the rear of the lead vehicle, which was owned and driven by Jerry Lee Coleman. Coleman brought suit against Appellees Mr. Dixon, Dixon Trucking, B-H Transfer, and Discover Property and Casualty Insurance Company, which is B-H Transfer’s insurer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of B-H Transfer based on a release and indemnity provision in the independent contractor agreement between Coleman and B-H Transfer. That provision applies to liability for “damage to persons or property resulting from the collision of two vehicles, both of which are under contract to” B-H Transfer. The trial court also denied summary judgment as to the remaining defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary judgment as to Discover and affirmed the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. Coleman v. B-H Transfer Co. , 290 Ga. App. 503 659 SE2d 880 2008. In Division 2 of its opinion, the Court of Appeals held that Coleman was not a member of the public entitled to protection under the law and that application of the release and indemnity provision in this case violates neither public policy nor 49 CFR § 387.15. Coleman v. B-H Transfer Co. , supra at 505-506 2. Having granted certiorari to review that holding, we conclude that application of the indemnity and release provision to Coleman’s claims against B-H Transfer and Discover is consistent with public policy and 49 C.F.R. § 387.15. 1. With regard to the specific federal regulation on which Coleman relied, the Court of Appeals correctly held that49 CFR § 387.15, which provides the federal minimum insurance coverage for motor common carriers, states that the required insurance does not apply to the insured’s employees while in the course of employment. And when defining “employee,” 49 CFR § 390.5 specifically includes an independent contractor. Cit.Coleman v. B-H Transfer Co. , supra at 506 2. “Neither the purposes of the federal Motor Carrier Act nor case law preclude the plain language interpretation of the regulations adopted by the Court of Appeals.” Perry v. Harco Nat. Ins. Co. , 129 F3d 1072, 1075 1 9th Cir. 1997. See also Consumers County Mut. Ins. Co. v. P.W. & Sons Trucking , 307 F3d 362, 365-366 5th Cir. 2002; Canal Ins. v. A & R Transp. and Warehouse , 827 NE2d 942, 947-948 Ill. App. 2005.
2. Federal motor carrier regulations required B-H Transfer, as a motor carrier utilizing leased or rented equipment,to “have exclusive possession, control, and use of the equipment for the duration of the lease. The lease shall further provide that the authorized carrier lessee shall assume complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment for the duration of the lease.” 49 CFR § 376.12 c 1. Under this regulatory scheme, the motor carrier is fully responsible to the public for the operation of its leased vehicles, cit. regardless of whether the vehicles are used in the scope of the carrier’s business.Hot Shot Express v. Assicurazioni Generali , 252 Ga. App. 372, 373-374 556 SE2d 475 2001. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the presence in an equipment lease of an indemnification clause directed to the lessor’s negligence conflicts neither with the lessee’s duties to the public and to shippers nor with the safety concerns of federal regulations. Transamerican Freight Lines v. Brada Miller Freight Systems , 423 U. S. 28 96 SC 229, 46 LE2d 169 1975.
