Brouse McDowell Noted in Law360 for Helping Secure $2M Settlement for Policyholder

Brouse attorneys Amanda Leffler, Wesley Lambert and Matthew Vansuch were quoted in a Law360 article titled “6^th Circ. Affirms Trucking Co.’s Coverage For $2M Settlement” discussing the recent ruling in favor of their client P.I. & Motor Express, Inc.

The article notes that the appeals court upheld a jury’s previous decision that a general liability insurer must cover a trucking company’s $2 million settlement for an accident that required the amputation of an injured driver’s legs, despite the insurer’s claims that the underlying plaintiff’s allegations regarding his employment status excluded him from coverage. The court also found the policy’s Workers’ Compensation exclusion was inapplicable because the injured driver did not bring the underlying tort action against the policyholder under Pennsylvania’s workers’ compensation law.

Brouse Partner and Co-Chair of the Insurance Recovery Practice Group Amanda Leffler said, “Prior to this case, other courts nationally had broadly construed the workers’ compensation exclusion for a variety of reasons not applicable to our case.” She also went on to say, “Here, however, the Sixth Circuit properly rejected the insurer’s attempts to stretch the exclusion beyond its plain and commonly understood meaning.” She also said the case “represents a significant win for policyholders.” Amanda and Partner and Litigation Chair Wesley Lambert showed their excitement for their client saying of the decision, “it affirms our client’s hard-fought victory in one of the first virtual jury trials in the country.”

Wesley added “The Court correctly held that, as the drafters of the policy, insurers should be held to the words they use in the contract and that policies should be construed to comport with the reasonable expectations those words create for insureds who purchase them.” Fellow Partner Matthew Vansuch continued to emphasize the significance of the ruling stating, “Only a handful of courts nationally have addressed this issue, and the court’s ruling that the definition of ‘temporary worker’ is not an exception to the exclusion is noteworthy.”

To read the full article click here (subscription required).