Trucking Insurance Dispute: UFCC Seeks Liability Judgment in NY
A trucking insurance company has petitioned a federal court for a declaration stating it has no obligation to cover a claim resulting from a collision in New York, asserting that neither the truck nor the driver involved were under its insurance policy.
On June 25, 2026, United Financial Casualty Company (UFCC) filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The insurer seeks a judgment that it is not liable to defend or indemnify BBG2X Transportation and related parties concerning a crash on March 25, 2021. The dispute involves multiple layers of coverage, centering around a trailer involved in a transaction.
According to the filing, BBG2X owned a 2017 trailer, which was in the process of being sold to a buyer and 12-K Transport under an "Equipment Rental Agreement." The agreement required a $25,000 down payment and monthly payments of $1,500 towards a total declared value of $55,000, with ownership retained by BBG2X until complete payment. UFCC claims that the trailer's deposit was made on March 12, 2021, when the buyer took possession.
On the incident date, the complaint asserts the trailer was attached to a 1990 Freightliner tractor, under the possession of Lorna Bean Trucking, with their driver operating the vehicle. A claimant, alleging injury from the incident, has pursued legal action. GEICO, which covered the claimant's no-fault benefits, initiated a subrogation claim, having paid $50,000 in Personal Injury Protection and an additional $18,832.62.
The core issue in this dispute lies within the policy terms. UFCC provided a commercial auto policy to BBG2X, which included the trailer but not the tractor or the driver involved. Their policy only covers damages for which the insured is legally accountable if an incident arises from the ownership, maintenance, or use of an insured vehicle.
Furthermore, UFCC points to the "Other Insurance" policy clause. According to the complaint, when a listed trailer is used with a non-owned power unit, the coverage becomes excess rather than primary. Therefore, the policy is excess over any primary insurance on the Lorna Bean vehicle.
The complaint also identifies two other insurance carriers. It claims Berkley National Insurance Company insures the Lorna Bean tractor and holds primary coverage responsibility. Additionally, it points to Trisura Specialty Insurance Company as having insured 12-K Transport’s operations, stating it holds primary coverage under the argument that the tractor was a "temporary substitute" for a 12-K vehicle, with a policy limit of $1 million.
A federal element is also referenced: UFCC states all three policies include an MCS-90 endorsement, which relates to interstate motor carriers under the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. The company argues that Berkley's and Trisura's endorsements apply, but not its own, due to the assertion the driver was not engaged in for-hire interstate commerce for BBG2X at the time of the accident.
The case brings attention to the specific challenges faced by claims professionals when a trailer sold on installment terms remains under a seller's policy, and the tractor is owned by another party. The primary versus excess liability can hinge on the power unit's ownership and the interpretation of "temporary substitute."
It is important to note that these allegations have not yet been adjudicated in court, and no judicial ruling has been made. The tort and subrogation cases are still active.