Progressive battles truck crash claim, says tractor-trailer wasn’t covered 

The motorist later sued MMT Carriers, Rodriguez-Nunez and other parties, alleging negligence and seeking damages for personal injuries. The lawsuit claims Rodriguez-Nunez lost control of the truck while attempting to avoid an earlier collision and that the resulting chain of events contributed to the crash that injured her.

At the center of Progressive’s coverage dispute is whether the tractor and trailer involved in the crash were insured under MMT’s commercial auto policy.

The insurer says the policy covered a single 2012 Freightliner Cascadia tractor and a non-owned attached trailer. 

Progressive contends the equipment involved in the crash was instead a 2005 Volvo tractor and a 2015 utility trailer that were not listed on the policy. The company also noted Rodriguez-Nunez was not among the policy’s three rated drivers.

Progressive further alleges it was never notified about the existence, acquisition or operation of the Volvo tractor and trailer and was never informed that Rodriguez-Nunez was operating vehicles potentially covered under the policy.

The insurer argues that because the tractor-trailer involved in the crash does not qualify as an “insured auto” under the policy, any liability arising from its ownership, maintenance or use falls outside the policy’s coverage. 

As a result, Progressive contends it has no obligation to defend MMT or Rodriguez-Nunez or pay any damages that may be awarded in Wade’s lawsuit.

The filing also states that the tractor involved in the crash was owned by a third party, R&E Carriers Inc., and that MMT did not own the vehicle at the time of the incident. 

Progressive further claims MMT had not retained the services of Rodriguez-Nunez when the crash occurred.

The motorist’s lawsuit seeks more than $1 million in damages and includes claims of negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, violations of federal and state motor carrier safety regulations, and gross negligence against the defendants.

A judge has not yet ruled on Progressive’s request for declaratory relief.

Why it matters: The case highlights a recurring issue in trucking litigation: whether a crash vehicle was properly scheduled on a motor carrier’s insurance policy, a determination that can decide whether an insurer must provide a legal defense and pay potentially significant judgments.