MCS-90 Is a Surety Agreement Different from the Insurance Policy
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gJqGiXax and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8CNebvm and at https://lnkd.in/gvuY9hG6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4450 posts.
An insurer and tort claimants dispute the insurer's maximum theoretical liability under a surety agreement. In Wesco Insurance Company v. Edward Eugene Rich, as wrongful death beneficiary of LaDonna C. Rich, Deceased; Edward Shayne Rich, as wrongful death beneficiary of LaDonna C. Rich, Deceased, No. 22-60283, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (January 12, 2023) resolved the dispute over the limits created by the federally required MCS-90 endorsement.
The MCS-90 is surety endorsement that Wesco Insurance Company included with a liability-insurance policy that it issued to Sam Freight Solutions, LLC. The insurance policy provides up to $1,000,000 in insurance coverage for a specific "covered auto," a 2012 Volvo Tractor (and certain trailers attached thereto). The MCS-90 surety endorsement, on the other hand, is a policy endorsement by which Wesco, by the endorsement's terms, assumed up to "$750,000" in liability for "any final judgment recovered against Sam Freight for public liability resulting from negligence in the operation" of any vehicle.
The MCS-90 Endorsement is Not Insurance.
Instead, it "creates a suretyship, which obligates an insurer to pay certain judgments against the insured . . ., even though the insurance contract would have otherwise excluded coverage."
FACTS
On July 29, 2018, LaDonna Rich died in an automobile collision involving a 2010 Freightliner. The Defendants are her beneficiaries, and they filed a wrongful-death suit against Sam Freight in Mississippi state court. The insurance policy (as distinct from the MCS-90 surety endorsement) that Sam Freight purchased from Wesco does not name the 2010 Freightliner as a covered auto. Therefore, the Wesco policy does not independently offer coverage for the collision.
The issue before the Fifth Circuit was the amount of coverage that the MCS-90 endorsement would provide in the event of a judgment against Sam Freight. The Beneficiaries argued that the MCS-90 endorsement would provide up to $1,000,000 in coverage, while Wesco argued that $750,000 would be the maximum available amount.
The district court granted summary judgment for Wesco, declaring that the MCS-90 endorsement unambiguously provides that Wesco shall not be liable for amounts in excess of $750,000. While this appeal was pending, the parties reached a settlement agreement under which Wesco agreed that it "will pay" whichever of the two amounts the Fifth Circuit determined the surety agreement to require.
Since the MCS-90 is a "federally mandated" endorsement the operation and effect of a federally mandated endorsement is a matter of federal law.
As a result the Fifth Circuit’s analysis focused on the plain language of the endorsement. To the extent that Mississippi substantive law governs any residual questions, such as those regarding only the policy, construction of an insurance policy is a question of law, which we the Fifth Circuit was required to review.
The insurance policy offers coverage of up to $1,000,000 per accident, but only for "covered autos." The parties agreed that the 2010 Freightliner was not a "covered auto" under the insurance policy's definition of that term.
The MCS-90 endorsement makes Wesco "liable," as a surety, for up to "$750,000 for each accident." The endorsement applies "regardless of whether or not each motor vehicle is specifically described in the policy."
The MCS-90 attached to the Wesco policy consists of a fill-in-the-blank form that provides spaces for the parties to identify, among other things: the insurer's name, the insured for whom the insurer is acting as surety, and the policy number that the endorsement supplements. In this case, the following amount appears in the blank space on the MCS-90: "[T]he company shall not be liable for amounts in excess of $750,000 for each accident." As a result, Wesco agreed to provide $1 million in insurance coverage for Sam Freight's covered autos, but only $750,000 in public liability coverage for all other vehicles.
The defendants argued that number that appears in the blank space ($750,000) is a "change" of the policy. But, it is a change, only if the Beneficiaries are otherwise correct that the MCS-90 and the insurance policy must have identical coverage limits.
The MCS-90, for instance, contains the following language:
"In consideration of the premium stated in the policy to which this endorsement is attached, the insurer (the company) agrees to pay, within the limits of liability described herein, any final judgment recovered against [Sam Freight] ...." [emphasis added]
The language quoted above sets up an unambiguous distinction between the policy and the endorsement. Likewise, the words "this endorsement" show that the liability limit described "herein" is the limit that appears in the endorsement, not the policy.
Neither the policy nor the endorsement required Wesco to provide suretyship liability in the exact same amount that it offers insurance coverage. The MCS-90's plain text limits Wesco's suretyship liability to $750,000.
The District Court’s decision was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
The MCS-90 endorsement is a creation of federal law. It is not insurance. It is an act of Congress to require an insurer to indemnify a person injured by a trucker insured who did not pay a premium for the insurance of a specific vehicle it was operating. Sam Freight identified a single vehicle when it acquired insurance from Wesco with limits of liability up to $1 million. The MCS-90 endorsement - compelled by federal law - limited the exposure of Wesco, acting as a surety not an insurer, up to $750,000. The language of the MCS-90 was clear and unambiguous and if the wrongful death beneficiaries received a judgment up to or more than $750,000 Wesco would be required to pay no more than $750,000 and any additional damages would be the responsibility of Sam Freight.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/guWk7gfM
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
