Court: No Insurance Coverage for Stolen Trailer That Wasn't in 'Transit'
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has issued a decision explaining whether a loaded trailer, which had been stolen, was still in transit for the purposes of the trucking company's insurance policy.
March 08, 2018 at 02:22 PM
4 minute read
This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit www.fcandslegal.com to subscribe.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has issued a decision explaining whether a loaded trailer, which had been stolen, was still in transit for the purposes of the trucking company's insurance policy.
|The Case
On May 8, 2008, at about 8 a.m., a driver for Naro Enterprises Inc., a trucking company, picked up a trailer loaded with steel rods from Sandvik Materials to be delivered to a location in Houston.
Prior to setting out for Texas, the driver returned to the Naro site at approximately noon May 8, 2008, to allow for a pre-trip inspection. Some damage to the trailer was discovered and an independent welder was brought to Naro to make the needed repair. This repair was done on May 10, 2008.
The loaded trailer remained at the Naro site in anticipation of continuing the delivery trip May 12, 2008.
The trailer, however, was last seen at Naro on May 11, 2008, sometime after noon. At least 75 hours had passed from the time the trailer had arrived at Naro until it had last been seen at Naro.
At approximately 1 a.m. May 12, 2008, at least 85 hours after arrival at Naro, the trailer and the steel rods were discovered to have been stolen.
On May 13, 2008, Naro submitted a claim to its insurance carrier, Great American Insurance Group, seeking in excess of $210,000 for the stolen goods.
Great American denied the claim, asserting that coverage only was provided for goods while in transit. Great American further asserted that transit had ended after 72 hours had passed with the trailer at the Naro site.
Naro sued.
A Luzerne County trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Great American, and Naro appealed. It argued that the trial court had erred when it had ruled that Naro's stolen trailer had not been in “transit” at the time of the theft.
|The Great American Policy
The Great American policy provided:
“Covered property means property of others that you have accepted for transportation as a motor carrier under your tariff and bill of lading or other written contract.
We cover property only while it is:
a. contained in or on a land vehicle while in 'transit' and/or during 'loading' and 'unloading.'
'Transit' begins with the actual movement of the goods from point of shipment bound for a specific destination. It remains in transit during the ordinary, reasonable and necessary stops, interruptions, delays or transfers incidental to the route and method of shipment.
'Transit' ends when any of the following occurs:
1. Covered property is accepted by, or on behalf of, the consignee at the intended destination or at any intermediate point short of the original intended destination.
2. Seventy-two hours after arrival at destination.
3. Any other stop that exceeds 72 hours.”
|The Superior Court's Decision
The appellate court affirmed.
In its decision, the court explained that, in its view, the definition of “'transit' ends” in the Great American insurance policy included three types of stops. First, when the cargo was accepted by the consignee. Second, when 72 hours expired after the arrival of the cargo at the destination. Third, when any “other” stop took place that exceeded 72 hours. Accordingly, the appellate court continued, “other” as used in the definition of “'transit' ends” referred to the immediately preceding conditions 1 and 2, and not (as Naro had contended) to the ordinary, reasonably, and necessary stops referred to in the definition of “'transit' begins.”
In other words, the appellate court said, cargo was covered as long as it was in transit. Transit included “any ordinary, reasonable and necessary stop,” as long as that stop was less than 72 hours long. Once a stop lasted more than 72 hours, the appellate court concluded, transit ended, and coverage for the cargo ceased—as it had in this case.
The case is Naro Enterprise v. Great American Insurance Group.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readAppeals Court Rules Pittsburgh School District Immune to Suit Over Sex Abuse of Disabled Student
4 minute readCivil RICO's Expanding Reach: From Foreign Schemes to Lost Employment
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 2Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
- 3USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces Resignation Ahead of Administration Change
- 4As Gen AI Acceptance Grows, Lawyers Race to Mitigate Risks
- 5Decisions Have 'Real-Life Consequences': Juvenile Court Judge Considered for Appellate Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250