Tri-National, Inc. v. Canal Ins. Co., No. 14-1595 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 2007, while operating a truck, Yelder, an employee of Yelder-N-Son Trucking, collided with a Tri-National truck, causing extensive property damage. Tri-National filed a claim with its insurer, Harco, which paid $91,100 and retained a subrogation interest. Yelder was insured by Canal with an MCS-90 endorsement, mandated by the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 793. In 2010, Canal sought a declaratory judgment against the Yelder defendants and Harco. An Alabama court entered default judgment against the Yelder defendants only, stating Canal had no duty to defend or indemnify them under the Canal policy. The court made no declaration about whether the MCS-90 endorsement requires a tortfeasor’s insurer to compensate an injured party when the injured party has already been compensated by its own insurer. Tri-National then sued the Yelders in Missouri and obtained a $91,100 default judgment. Tri-National sought equitable garnishment against Canal, apparently on behalf of Harco. Canal removed the action to the federal district court, which granted Tri-National’s motion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the MCS-90 does require such compensation. The circumstance of Tri-National carrying its own insurance did not absolve Canal of its obligations under the endorsement
Court Description: Civil case - Motor Carrier Act of 1980. Tri-National held a default judgment against Canal's insured and was the real party in interest under Missouri law; Alabama court did not render a final judgment on the merits of Tri-National's present claim on the MCS-90 endorsement issue since that claim was voluntarily dismissed, and the present claim was not barred by res judicata; Tri-National could assert its rights as a member of the general public under the MCS-90 endorsement and that fact that its insurer had satisfied its claim did not preclude this action or absolve defendant of its obligations under the endorsement.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.