THE MASON AND DIXON LINES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, vs. WALTERS METAL FABRICATION, INC., Defendant.

 

Case No. 13-cv-1262-SMY-DGW

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

 

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129285

 

 

September 16, 2014, Decided

September 16, 2014, Filed

 

 

COUNSEL:  [*1] For The Mason and Dixon Lines, Incorporated, A Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: Daniel C. Sullivan, Matthew P. Barrette, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Sullivan Hincks & Conway, Oak Brook, IL; Michael J. McKitrick, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jeffrey R Schmitt, Danna McKitrick, PC, St. Louis, MO.

 

For Walters Metal Fabrication, Inc, an Illinois Corp, Defendant: Dawn K. O’Leary, Evans Blasi LLC, Granite City, IL; Eric W. Evans, Evans Blasi, Granite City, IL.

 

For Walters Metal Fabrication, Inc, an Illinois Corp, Counter Claimant, Counter Claimant: Eric W. Evans, Evans Blasi, Granite City, IL.

 

JUDGES: STACI M. YANDLE, DISTRICT JUDGE.

 

OPINION BY: STACI M. YANDLE

 

OPINION

 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on The Mason and Dixon Lines, Incorporated’s (“MADL”) motions to dismiss (Docs. 17 & 27). Defendant Walters Metal Fabrication, Inc. (“Walters”) filed responses (Docs. 19 & 31) to which MADL replied (Docs. 20 & 33). For the following reasons, the Court denies as moot MADL’s first motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) and grants MADL’s second motion to dismiss (Doc. 27).

 

1. Background

As an initial matter, the Court notes that MADL’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) dated January 16, 2014 was directed at Walters’ counterclaims [*2]  alleged along with Walters’ answer to MADL’s original complaint. Since that time, MADL filed an amended complaint, and Walters filed an answer to the amended complaint along with its counterclaims. As such, the Court denies as moot MADL’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) dated January 16, 2014. The Court will turn to address MADL’s second motion to dismiss (Doc. 27) dated April 2, 2014.

This matter arises out of a contract entered into between Walters and MADL for the transportation of an over-dimensional shipment of goods. Walters is a metal fabrication company located in Granite City, Illinois, that sought to transport its product, pipe spools, to a customer located in Mont Belvieu, Texas. As such, Walters contracted with MADL to deliver the over-dimensional load.1 MADL secured a permit for an over-dimensional shipment from the Illinois Department of Transportation (“IDOT”).2 The permit provided for the shipment of a load the height of 15 feet, 9 inches and provided a route the driver was required to follow when delivering the load. On December 29, 2012, while following IDOT’s mandatory route, the driver drove the load into the underside of the Herrin Road Bridge on Interstate Highway 57 [*3]  causing damage to the load.

 

1   The Illinois Vehicle Code limits the height of any vehicle to 13 feet, 6 inches “from the under side of the tire to the top of the vehicle, inclusive of load.” 625 ILCS 5/15-103.

2   Illinois requires the individual or company making the movement of a load exceeding the maximum size and weight requirements, as specified in the Illinois Vehicle Code, to apply for a permit. 625 ILCS 5/15-301. At its discretion, IDOT may prescribe the route which the carrier must follow when delivering the load. Id.

On June 30, 2013, Walters filed a “Standard Form for Presentation of Loss and Damage Claims” for $391,922.11 (Doc. 11-6). Walters’ claim was denied in a letter from Universal Am-Can, Ltd.3 dated September 19, 2013 (Doc. 11-7). Thereafter, Walters demanded immediate payment of the claim plus delay claims. Walters further claimed an offset in the amount of $138,838.50 against transportation invoices from a separate corporation affiliate of MADL that was not a party to the contract. MADL filed the instant action asking the Court to declare as follows: (1) the Tariffs and Bill of Lading apply to the shipment at issue; (2) MADL’s compliance with IDOT’s permit constitutes a force majeure relieving MADL of liability; [*4]  (3) alternatively, if the Court finds no force majeure, Walters’ recovery is limited to $100,000; and (4) Walters’ retention of the $128,838.50 due to another corporate entity was not an allowable set-off. Walters’ filed a counterclaim alleging both a negligence claim and a claim arising under the Federal Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706.

 

3   MADL does not elaborate on its relationship with Universal Am-Can, Ltd.; however, Universal Am-Can, Ltd. appears to be a corporate affiliate of MADL.

MADL filed its motion to dismiss (Doc. 27) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) arguing that Walters’ negligence claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Specifically, MADL argues that the Federal Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a), preempts any state law claim arising from damage to cargo during the interstate transportation of goods by motor carrier. In its response, Walters contends that (1) the issue of whether MADL is a motor carrier or a broker should not be determined on a motion to dismiss; (2) the Carmack Amendment does not preempt Walters’ claims which extend beyond the damage to property; and (3) the Carmack Amendment does not preempt any state law claims against any defendant who is not a motor carrier.

In its reply, MADL contends that Walters admitted MADL was a motor carrier in Walters’ counterclaim allegations. [*5]  Specifically, MADL points to the following portions of Walters’ counterclaim:

 

5. On November 8, 2012, Walters contracted [MADL] to haul cargo from its facility to its customer’s facility in Baytown, Texas. []

6. [MADL] issued a bill of lading to Walters [], obtained permits from the State of Illinois and hired a pilot car to guide the load.

7. While hauling the cargo on I-64 in Williamson County, Illinois, [MADL] acting through its agents or employees, drove the load into the underside of the Herrin Road bridge at 57 mph.

 

 

(Doc. 26, p. 3). The Court will consider the parties’ arguments in turn.

 

2. Analysis

When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all allegations in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)). To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This requirement is satisfied if the complaint (1) describes the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests and (2) plausibly suggests that the plaintiff has a right to relief above a speculative level. Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009); EEOC v. Concentra Health Servs., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007). “A claim has facial plausibility [*6]  when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 556).

Finally, a litigant need not anticipate and affirmatively address defenses in its complaint to survive a motion to dismiss. Barry Aviation Inc. v. Land O’Lakes Mun. Airport Comm’n, 377 F.3d 682, 688 (7th Cir. 2004). However, a party may “plead itself out of court by alleging (and thus admitting) the ingredients of a defense” on the face of the complaint. U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Ind. Gas Co., 350 F.3d 623, 626 (7th Cir. 2003).

With these standards in mind, the Court will consider whether Walters has properly pleaded a negligence counterclaim against MADL. It is well established that the Carmack Amendment, included within the Interstate Commerce Act, preempts state-law causes of action for damages against a motor carrier for damaged goods. REI Transp., Inc. v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 519 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Gordon v. United Van Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 282, 288 (7th Cir. 1997). However, the Carmack Amendment only preempts those causes of actions for damages to the goods, not every conceivable cause of action associated with the delivery of goods. Gordon, 130 F.3d at 289. The Seventh Circuit has specifically suggested that “a carrier might be liable to a shipper under a statute prohibiting deceptive trade practices, or a bailor might be able to recover from a bailee in tort if the claim for relief does not depend on the existence of a contract.” Id.

First, the Court [*7]  will address Walters’ argument that the Carmack Amendment does not preempt its claims extending beyond damage to its property. Count One clearly alleges a state law negligence claim resulting from the damage to its goods and the resulting damages caused by a delay in delivery of those goods. Walters does not allege a separate cause of action, such as deceptive trade practices, that is not associated with the delivery of the goods. As such, this argument fails.

Next, Walters’ contends that the Carmack Amendment does not preempt any cause of action against MADL because it is not clear whether MADL is a broker, motor carrier, or freight forwarder. If MADL is a broker, the Carmack Amendment would not preempt Walters’ negligence claim. However, if MADL is a motor carrier, Walters’ negligence claim against MADL must be dismissed. MADL argues that Walters has pleaded itself out of court on its negligence claim because it has alleged facts clearly describing MADL as a motor carrier, not a broker. Thus, the Court must determine whether Walters has alleged facts conclusively describing MADL as a carrier warranting dismissal of the negligence claim.

The Interstate Commerce Act defines the relevant concepts. A “broker” is

 

a person, other than a motor [*8]  carrier or an employee or agent of a motor carrier, that as a principal or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as selling, providing, or arranging for, transportation by motor carrier for compensation.

 

 

49 U.S.C. § 13102(2). A “motor carrier” is “a person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation.” 49 U.S.C. § 13102(14). Finally, a “freight forwarder” is

a person holding itself out to the general public (other than as a pipeline, rail, motor, or water carrier) to provide transportation for compensation and in the ordinary course of its business — (A) assembles and consolidates, or provides for assembling and consolidating, shipments and performs or provides for break-bulk and distribution operations of the shipments; (B) assumes responsibility for the transportation from the place of receipt to the place of destination; and (C) uses for any part of the transportation a carrier subject to jurisdiction under this subtitle.

 

 

49 U.S.C. § 13102(8).

“Whether a company is a broker or a carrier/freight forwarder is not determined by how it labels itself, but by how it holds itself out to the world and its relationship to the shipper.” Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. GES Exposition Servs., Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 920, 921 (N.D. Ill. 2003). The distinction between a broker [*9]  and a carrier is not always clear. See Neb. Turkey Growers Coop. Ass’n v. ATS Logistics Servs., No. 4:05-cv-3060, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31683, 2005 WL 3118008, at *4 (D. Neb. Nov. 22, 2005). One crucial distinction between a carrier and broker is the legal responsibilities taken on by the party. 49 C.F.R. § 371.2(a). In this case, if MADL took legal responsibility for transporting the goods, regardless of who actually delivered them, MADL is a carrier. However, if MADL made an agreement with Walters to simply arrange for transportation of the goods, MADL is a broker. See CGU Int’l Ins., PLC v. Keystone Lines Corp., No. C-01-3751 SC, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8123, 2004 WL 1047982 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2004).

Here, on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all facts as pleaded in Walters’ counterclaim. Initially, the Court notes that in Count One of Walters’ counter-claim, Walters’ alleges MADL is both a “freight carrier and freight broker” (Doc. 26, p. 3). This conclusory pleading alone, however, is not sufficient to sustain Walters’ negligence claim. Walters alleges it contracted with MADL “to haul cargo from [Walters’] facility to its customer’s facility.” A motor carrier, not a broker, would take on the responsibility of hauling the cargo to Walters’ customer. Walters also alleges MADL obtained permits from IDOT to transport the over-dimensional [*10]  load. Again, in line with the statutory definitions, a motor carrier, not a broker, would undertake this task. See 625 ILCS 5/15-301 (requiring the entity transporting the goods to make the permit application for an over-dimensional load). Thus, based on the facts pleaded in the counterclaim, Walters has “plead[ed] itself out of court” with respect to its negligence claim. See U.S. Gypsum Co., 350 F.3d at 626.

 

3. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES as moot MADL’s first motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) and GRANTS MADL’s second motion to dismiss (Doc. 27).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Court of Appeal,

Third District, California.

SCOTTSDALE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

NATIONAL CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

 

C071416

Filed August 20, 2014

 

(Super. Ct. No. 34201000083168CUICGDS)

Alan Bradley Yuter, Selman Breitman, LLP, 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, 6th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

 

Stephen Michael Smith, Yocis & Cox, 340 Golden Shore, Suite 230, Long Beach, CA 90802, for Defendant and Respondent.

 

RAYE , P.J.

*1 In this insurance coverage action, plaintiff Scottsdale Indemnity Company (Scottsdale) and defendant National Continental Insurance Company (NCI) seek this court’s determination whether they are coprimary insurers or whether NCI is an excess insurer for an underlying fatality involving a tractor/trailer rig operated by Manuel S. Lainez. The trial court granted NCI’s motion for a summary judgment, concluding that Scottsdale was the primary insurer pursuant to California Insurance Code section 11580.9, subdivisions (d) and (h). FN1 We agree that Scottsdale is the primary insurer and NCI is the excess insurer and affirm the judgment.

 

FN1. All further statutory references are to the Insurance Code unless otherwise designated.

 

FACTS

By January of 2007 Manuel Lainez had been independently driving commercial vehicles for eight and one-half years. He owned his own truck, also known as a power unit or tractor, and his own business, Lainez Trucking. He had his own motor carrier permit and operating authority in the state of California. He purchased a trucker’s liability policy from Scottsdale with a $1 million liability limit. The policy specifically described and rated a 1999 Freightliner tractor Lainez had purchased about three years earlier and expressly covered any attached trailer.

 

Lainz entered into a motor carrier agreement with Western Transportation Services (Western Transport), a nonasset-based corporation that contracts exclusively with owner/operators and arranges for them to pick up and deliver loads to various customers in California and Nevada. It does not own tractors or trailers, but contracts with owner/operators or drivers. The agreement provided that Lainez was an independent contractor and was responsible for all costs and expenses incidental to the performance of transportation services. He agreed to maintain liability insurance and to name Western Transport as an additional insured.

 

Western Transport, through the California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan (CAARP), purchased a commercial assigned risk policy from NCI. The policy stated, “ ‘Named Insured’s Business: 1 Trucker for Hire–Excess’ ” and named Lainez as a driver. It did not list, describe, or rate any vehicle. It was rated on an excess cost of hire basis at a premium that was 4 to 10 percent of the cost of a policy rated on a primary cost of hire basis.

 

Both policies were in effect on January 10, 2007, when Lainez, hauling goods for Western Transport in his 1999 Freightliner tractor with an attached 1984 Hyundai 53–foot box trailer, was involved in a fatal collision with Constancio Acayayan Barcenas. Barcenas’s wife and children filed various wrongful death actions. On February 6, 2008, NCI tendered the defense of Western Transport to Scottsdale. Scottsdale accepted the defense and indemnification, and the representative handling the claim stated, “Scottsdale’s coverage would be primary and that Western Transport’s policy with NCI was excess to the Scottsdale policy and would not have to make any payment unless the judgment or settlement exceeded the limits of the Scottsdale policy.” Scottsdale exclusively handled the defense of both Lainez and Western Transport and did not tender the defense of either defendant to NCI.

 

*2 Two years later Scottsdale reversed course and demanded that NCI indemnify it for its pro rata share of the cost of defense as a coprimary insurer pursuant to section 11580.9. NCI rejected Scottsdale’s demand.

 

NCI did participate in a mediation in which the wrongful death claims were settled, and it contributed $200,000 of the $675,000 settlement. Scottsdale paid $475,000. As part of the settlement, NCI reserved the right to seek reimbursement for its payment from Scottsdale, and Scottsdale reserved its right to seek contribution from NCI for defense costs and for part of its settlement payment.

 

Scottsdale asserts causes of action against NCI for declaratory relief regarding both the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify as well as for equitable contribution for defense costs and indemnification. The insurers filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted NCI’s motion and denied Scottsdale’s. Scottsdale appeals.

 

DISCUSSION

To minimize insurance coverage litigation when more than one insurance policy provides coverage, the Legislature has created a series of conclusive presumptions. ( Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Sequoia Ins. Co. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1285, 1296–1297.) “Section 11580.9 contains a number of subdivisions designed to cover many common coverage dispute situations; each addresses a different set of factual circumstances and identifies which policies will be deemed primary and which policies will be deemed excess.” ( Transport Indemnity Co. v. Royal Ins. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 250, 253 (Transport Indemnity ).) The trial court found that Scottsdale provided primary coverage and NCI provided excess coverage under two subdivisions of section 11580.9–(d) and (h).

 

Under section 11580.9, a policy that specifically describes a vehicle involved in an accident is primary to a policy that does not describe any vehicle. Subdivision (d) of section 11580.9 (subdivision (d)) provides in relevant part: “[W]here two or more policies affording valid and collectible liability insurance apply to the same motor vehicle or vehicles in an occurrence out of which a liability loss shall arise, it shall be conclusively presumed that the insurance afforded by that policy in which the motor vehicle is described or rated as an owned automobile shall be primary and the insurance afforded by any other policy or policies shall be excess.”

 

The trial court found that subdivision (d) was the more specific subdivision. The court explained: “[I]n this situation, subdivision (d) appears to be the more specific subdivision as it applies where ‘two or more policies affording valid and collectible liability insurance apply to the same motor vehicle or vehicles in an occurrence out of which a liability loss shall arise, it shall be conclusively presumed that the insurance afforded by that policy in which the motor vehicle is described or rated as an owned automobile shall be primary and the insurance afforded by any other policy shall be excess.’ [emphasis added] (Ins.Code § 11580.9(d).) In the instant case, given that there is no dispute that the subject policies covered both the power unit and the trailer, ‘two or more policies affording valid and collectible liability insurance apply to the same motor vehicle or vehicles …’ (Id.) Further, it is undisputed that only Scottsdale’s policy described or rated any vehicle. Indeed, the Scottsdale policy specifically described and rated the power unit. [Citation.] A vehicle is described or rated when it is ‘particularized’ in a policy. ( Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 521, 524….) Given these undisputed facts, Scottsdale’s policy is primary under Insurance Code section 11580.9(d) and NCI’s is excess.”

 

*3 We agree. The application of subdivision (d) is quite straightforward and determined by an answer to a simple question. “Whether section 11580.9, subdivision (d) applies to an occurrence depends upon the existence of the simply stated condition. Do two or more insurance policies cover the same motor vehicle in ‘an occurrence out of which a liability loss shall arise?’ If the answer is ‘yes,’ the statute applies. If the answer is ‘no,’ the statute does not apply.” ( Wilshire Ins. Co., Inc. v. Sentry Select Ins. Co. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 27, 36 (Wilshire ).) Scottsdale and NCI agreed that both policies applied to the rig. As a consequence, Scottsdale’s policy is primary because it describes the 1999 Freightliner tractor/trailer rig.

 

Scottsdale insists that section 11580.9, subdivision (h) (subdivision (h)) was designed to either supersede or trump subdivision (d) in all cases involving a power unit and a trailer. In other words, Scottsdale maintains that subdivision (h), rather than subdivision (d), is the more specific subdivision applicable to the instant facts.

 

Subdivision (h) states: “Notwithstanding subdivision (b), when two or more policies affording valid and collectible automobile liability insurance apply to a power unit and an attached trailer or trailers in an occurrence out of which a liability loss shall arise, and one policy affords coverage to a named insured in the business of a trucker, defined as any person or organization engaged in the business of transporting property by auto for hire, then the following shall be conclusively presumed: If at the time of loss, the power unit is being operated by any person in the business of a trucker, the insurance afforded by the policy to the person engaged in the business of a trucker shall be primary for both power unit and trailer or trailers, and the insurance afforded by the other policy shall be excess.” Because Scottsdale’s policy describes the vehicle and NCI’s does not, Scottsdale’s is primary and NCI’s is excess.

 

Both insurers and the trial court appear to agree that subdivision (h) was added to address a conflict in the decisions whether the insurer of the power unit or the insurer of the trailer was primary when two different policies covered separate parts of the rig. (See, e.g., Transport Indemnity, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d 250; Mission Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 1199, 1212–1213.) Here, however, both policies covered the tractor and the trailer. Again the trial court’s insightful analysis is instructive: “The Court rejects Scottsdale’s argument set forth more fully in its cross motion for summary adjudication that subdivision (d) could not apply. Indeed, its very argument against its application actually supports why it should apply. It argues that virtually every court has held that a tractor-trailer unit is a single ‘motor vehicle’ for purposes of section 11580.9. [Citation.] It then argues that Courts were split on the interpretation of subdivision (d) as it applied to tractor-trailer units and added subdivision (h) to address trucking accidents. The Court is aware that Scottsdale may be referring to cases such as Wilshire Ins. Co. v. Sentry Select Ins. Co. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 27, where the court found that two policies were both primary under subdivision (d) where one policy covered a tractor and one covered the trailer. The legislative history of subdivision (h), while not referring to Wilshire indicates that this was the situation that subdivision (h) was intended to address. Scottsdale appears to confirm as much as it states that subdivision (h) mandates that in situations where one policy covers the power unit and one covers the trailer, ‘that the policy insuring the power unit (tractor) shall be the primary for the loss and the policy insuring the attached trailer or trailers shall be excess.’ [Citation.] The Court agrees that this statement is entirely consistent with the legislative intent behind subdivision (h) and avoids the result in Wilshire. However, Scottsdale then leaps to the conclusion that subdivision (h) also applies where there are two policies covering both the tractor and trailer. The legislative intent behind subdivision (h) does not dictate that it applies in these circumstances and the apparent inconsistency sought to be addressed by subdivision (h) is not applicable where both policies cover the tractor-trailer, or the entire motor vehicle. Rather, subdivision (d) appears to be the more appropriate subdivision.”

 

*4 We accept Scottsdale’s premise that two insurance policies can be equally ranked or coprimary under section 11580.9. ( Wilshire, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 27.) And we certainly subscribe to the basic tenets of statutory construction, including our adherence to the plain meaning of the words of the statute and the elementary principle that a court cannot add or subtract words to or from the statute. ( San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. San Francisco Classroom Teachers Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 146, 149; Breslin v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1064, 1079.) But we disagree with Scottsdale that we should force application of subdivision (h) to a situation, as here, that was not intended or contemplated by the Legislature rather than to apply subdivision (d), which clearly and unequivocally applies to the facts and establishes the priority of coverage as explained by the trial court at some length. Scottsdale’s coverage is primary because Lainez’s truck was particularized on the policy, whereas NCI is secondary because his rig was not identified at all on its policy.

 

But Scottsdale contends that if we apply subdivision (d) to any case involving a tractor/trailer rig we will unravel the resolution of the battle between tractor and trailer insurers and undo all that subdivision (h) was designed to achieve. Not so. Subdivision (h) does solve the battles between insurers of power units and insurers of trailers. And that is precisely what it was intended to accomplish. (U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Williamsburg Nat. Ins. Co. (E.D.Cal., Nov. 19, 2008, No. 1:07–cv–00718 GSA) 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93991, *22–*24, citing Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Peerless Ins. Co. (E.D.Cal., June 7, 2007, No. CV F 06–1113 LJO SMS) 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44153.) But to conclude, as we do, that subdivision (d) is the specific statute that applies to the facts of our case, even though a tractor/trailer rig is involved, is not to resurrect the old conflicts between insurers of tractors and insurers of trailers.

 

Scottsdale argues that subdivision (h) renders both insurers primary because both were “engaged in the business of a trucker” when the fatality occurred. Scottsdale accuses the trial court of adding language to the statute by reasoning that the use of the term “operated” in the first clause automatically meant that it applied in the second clause. By adding words to the statute, Scottsdale argues the trial court erroneously interpreted subdivision (h) to render the insurer of the operator of the tractor/trailer primary. But Scottsdale insists subdivision (h) does not state that the policy for the operator is primary; rather, it states that the trucker’s policy is primary. And here, Scottsdale concludes, there are two truckers, both of whom should be primary.

 

But we need not address the nuances and ambiguities of subdivision (h) despite Scottsdale’s protestations to the contrary. The language of subdivision (h) does not address a situation where, as here, there are two trucker policies covering both the tractor and the trailer. Rather, the statute differentiates between the operation of the power unit and the operation of the trailer. “If at the time of loss, the power unit is being operated by any person in the business of a trucker, the insurance afforded by the policy to the person engaged in the business of a trucker shall be primary for both power unit and trailer or trailers, and the insurance afforded by the other policy shall be excess.” (§ 11580.9, subd. (h).) Simply put, we agree with the trial court that subdivision (h) does not speak to the involvement of two businesses engaged in trucking.

 

Scottsdale concedes as much but draws a different conclusion. In Scottsdale’s view, if the Legislature failed to foresee that two or more insurers might provide truckers’ insurance, it is up to the Legislature to amend the statute. Since the statute does not preclude the application of its terms to more than one insurance policy, Scottsdale urges us to apply it to both businesses engaged in the business of a trucker, i.e., to both Scottsdale and NCI.

 

*5 We disagree where, as here, a second conclusive presumption specifically applies and resolves the coverage dispute. We reject Scottsdale’s invitation to apply subdivision (h) to circumstances the statute was not designed to reach simply because a tractor and trailer are involved, when subdivision (d) clearly applies to two insurance policies covering the same motor vehicle–in this case, the tractor/trailer rig. Under these circumstances, it is subdivision (d), not subdivision (h), that is the more specific statute, and subdivision (d)’s conclusive presumption should be applied to resolve the coverage dispute.

 

NCI catalogues a number of purported undisputed facts to support its claim that it offered only excess coverage. Lainez, the driver, was driving his own truck that he had insured by Scottsdale, operating his own business under his own California authority, and he was operating the power unit “at the time of loss.” (§ 11580.9, subd. (h).) Western Transport had required him to purchase his own insurance, and although it secured an additional policy, the policy itself identified the coverage as excess and the cost was rated as an excess policy. NCI notes that Scottsdale accepted the tender and defended the wrongful death actions, and its representative acknowledged that its policy was primary.

 

Scottsdale maintains that all of these facts are irrelevant and urges us to construe the language of the statute as a matter of law. It does, however, also urge us to take judicial notice of a reply brief NCI filed in another lawsuit in which NCI purportedly took a different position on the meaning of subdivision (h). The request is denied. “The fact a party takes inconsistent legal positions in different actions proves nothing more than that it may have been right–or wrong–in one of them. (See People v. Webb (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 401, 413 [230 Cal.Rptr. 755] (conc. opn. of Sims, J.))” ( People ex rel. Dept. of Fish & Game v. Attransco, Inc. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1926, 1929–1930, fn. 5.) We agree, however, that we need not consider the equities between the insurers or interject a panoply of facts into a solely legal analysis of the applicability of the two subdivisions of section 11580.9.

 

Thus we conclude that subdivision (d) specifically applies where, as here, there are two policies “affording valid and collectible liability insurance … to the same motor vehicle or vehicles in an occurrence out of which a liability loss [arose].” (§ 11580.9, subd. (d).) Although the conclusive presumption set forth in subdivision (h) was intended to resolve the coverage disputes between insurers of power units and insurers of trailers, there is nothing in the statute or the legislative history to suggest it applies when two trucker’s policies provide coverage to the entire rig. As a result, subdivision (d) is the more specific subdivision that applies and thereby renders the Scottsdale policy primary and the NCI policy excess.

 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 

We concur:

BLEASE , J.

HOCH , J.