Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Daniel J. KNISPEL, Jacob Knispel and Ryan Knispel, by their guardian ad litem,

Mark P. Wendorff, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company, Involuntary-Plaintiff-Co-Appellant,

v.

NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY and Richard J. Brost, Defendants-Respondents,

West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, Valley Express, LLC, United States Fire

Insurance Company, Westchester Fire Insurance Company, American Guarantee and

Liability Insurance Company and The American Insurance Company, Defendants.

Aug. 25, 2005.

¶ 1 LUNDSTEN, P.J.

Daniel Knispel was injured because of the operation of a semi tractor insured by Northland Insurance Company. Daniel and his sons, Jacob and Ryan Knispel, sued Northland and other parties. Daniel and his sons, and Acuity Mutual Insurance Company (collectively referred to as Knispel), appeal an order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Northland and dismissing Northland from the action. The circuit court granted summary judgment based on its conclusion that the Northland policy contained an endorsement that excluded coverage. The court rejected Knispel’s argument that the endorsement was contextually ambiguous under Folkman v. Quamme, 2003 WI 116, 264 Wis.2d 617, 665 N.W.2d 857, and that the endorsement had the effect of making coverage illusory. We agree with the circuit court and affirm.

Background

¶ 2 Richard Brost owns and operates a semi tractor. He purchased insurance for the tractor from Northland Insurance Company. His policy contained an exclusion stating that his “insurance does not apply to: … [his tractor] while used in the business of anyone to whom the [tractor] is rented.”

The record contains two copies of the policy, one submitted by Northland Insurance and one submitted by Knispel, but they are not the same. In his appellate brief, Knispel points out some of the differences, but he does not suggest that there is a factual dispute on this topic that prevents summary judgment. Neither Knispel nor Northland argues that one policy is clearer than the other. It is not apparent from the circuit court’s decision which copy of the policy the circuit court relied on. We note that the copy of the policy contained in Knispel’s appendix is not an exact copy of either of the copies in the record. Instead, Knispel has added two introductory pages to that copy of the policy, apparently acknowledging that the copy he submitted to the circuit court was incomplete.

Because summary judgment was granted in favor of Northland, we will refer to the copy of the policy submitted by Knispel to the circuit court. We do not, as Knispel does, refer to a combination of both copies of the policy.

¶ 3 Prior to purchasing his Northland policy, Brost leased his semi tractor to a trucking company named Valley Express. At the same time, Brost was under contract with Valley Express to operate his semi tractor for Valley Express. While the semi tractor was leased to Valley Express and while Brost was operating the tractor for Valley Express, an accident occurred involving the tractor. Plaintiff Knispel was operating a forklift between a trailer attached to the tractor and a loading dock. Brost pulled away from the loading dock while Knispel was backing the forklift out of the trailer that was attached to the tractor. The forklift and Knispel fell to the ground and Knispel was severely injured. As a result of the accident, Knispel is a quadriplegic confined to a wheelchair.

¶ 4 This appeal involves only whether, with respect to Knispel’s injury, there is coverage for Brost’s semi tractor under the Northland policy.

Discussion

Standard of Review

¶ 5 The circuit court dismissed all claims against Northland Insurance on summary judgment. We perform summary judgment analysis de novo, applying the same method employed by circuit courts. Brownelli v. McCaughtry, 182 Wis.2d 367, 372, 514 N.W.2d 48 (Ct.App.1994). That method is well established and need not be repeated in its entirety. See, e.g., Lambrecht v. Estate of Kaczmarczyk, 2001 WI 25, ¶ ¶ 20-24, 241 Wis.2d 804, 623 N.W.2d 751. It is sufficient to say here that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id., ¶ 24.

¶ 6 Knispel argues that the rental exclusion endorsement in the Northland insurance policy is contextually ambiguous and, therefore, must be construed in favor of coverage. The construction of insurance policy language is a question of law, which we review de novo. Van Erden v. Sobczak, 2004 WI App 40, ¶ 22, 271 Wis.2d 163, 677 N.W.2d 718, review denied, 2004 WI 114, 273 Wis.2d 655, 684 N.W.2d 136 (No.2002AP1595). Knispel also argues that the rental exclusion renders the policy coverage illusory. Whether coverage in an insurance policy is illusory is also a question of law. Hinrichs v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2001 WI App 114, ¶ 14, 244 Wis.2d 191, 629 N.W.2d 44.

Contextual Ambiguity

¶ 7 The seminal case on contextual ambiguity is Folkman, 264 Wis.2d 617. We recently summarized the pertinent law from that case:

When we construe insurance policy provisions, our goal is to give effect to the intent of the parties as expressed in the language of the policy. Folkman v. Quamme, 2003 WI 116, ¶ 12, 264 Wis.2d 617, 665 N.W.2d 857. We first inquire whether the language regarding the disputed coverage issue is ambiguous, that is, susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Id., ¶ 13. If there is no ambiguity, we apply the language as written, without resort to rules of construction or principles of case law. Id. On the other hand, if there is ambiguity, we construe the clause in favor of the insured. Id.

A provision that is unambiguous in itself may be ambiguous in the context of the entire policy. Id., ¶ 19. The test for determining contextual ambiguity is the same as that for determining whether a particular clause is ambiguous: is the language of the particular provision, “when read in the context of the policy’s other language, reasonably or fairly susceptible to more than one construction … measured by the objective understanding of an ordinary insured.” Id., ¶ 29 (citations omitted). In determining whether there is contextual ambiguity, we inquire whether “the organization, labeling, explanation, inconsistency, omission, and text” of other relevant provisions in the policy create an “objectively reasonable alternative meaning and, thereby, disrupt an insurer’s otherwise clear policy language.” Id., ¶ ¶ 19, 30.

Ruenger v. Soodsma, 2005 WI App 79, ¶ ¶ 9-10, — Wis.2d —-, 695 N.W.2d 840. We now apply this law to the case before us.

¶ 8 Brost’s Northland insurance policy provides liability coverage for his semi tractor. The policy contains an exclusion titled: “TRUCKERS–INSURANCE FOR NON-TRUCKING USE.” This exclusion states:

Liability Coverage [for Brost’s semi tractor] is changed as follows:

1. The following exclusions are added:

This insurance does not apply to:

….

b. A covered “auto” while used in the business of anyone to whom the “auto” is rented.

Thus, this exclusion means that the policy does not provide coverage for Brost’s semi tractor when the tractor is being used in the business of anyone to whom the tractor is being rented. Knispel implicitly concedes that the above exclusion language, viewed alone, unambiguously excludes coverage because Brost’s semi tractor was rented to Valley Express and was being used in the business of Valley Express when the accident occurred.

¶ 9 Instead, Knispel argues that this rental exclusion is ambiguous in the context of the entire policy under the contextual ambiguity analysis explained in Folkman and more recent decisions such as Dowhower v. Marquez, 2004 WI App 3, 268 Wis.2d 823, 674 N.W.2d 906, review denied, 2004 WI 20, 269 Wis.2d 198, 675 N.W.2d 804 (No.2001AP1347). Tracking language in these cases, Knispel asserts that ambiguity is created by organizational complexity, poor labeling, poor explanations, inconsistencies, and omissions. However, when Knispel tracks through the policy and comments on various aspects of it, it becomes clear that the thrust of his argument is that the rental exclusion clause is difficult to find. He does not show that any of the asserted problems with the organization of the policy create an “objectively reasonable alternative meaning.” See Folkman, 264 Wis.2d 617, ¶ 30. Indeed, nowhere in his arguments does Knispel provide an alternative reasonable meaning for the rental exclusion clause.

¶ 10 We agree with Knispel that the policy has some of the organizational problems identified as factors in other cases. For example, as in Badger Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schmitz, 2002 WI 98, ¶ 62, 255 Wis.2d 61, 647 N.W.2d 223, the declarations page does not make specific reference to the exclusion at issue. But drawing isolated comparisons with prior cases does not explain why the context of the policy in this case creates a reasonable alternative meaning for the rental exclusion clause.

¶ 11 Knispel makes a few arguments that seem to assert that there is ambiguity, but when we examine these arguments we find that they lack merit. For example, Knispel points to the “Automobile Insurance Identification Card” page in the policy. This page is divided in quarters by dotted lines, and each quarter-page contains an identification card. Three of the cards are stamped “Void.” The remaining card identifies Northland as the insurer, Brost as the insured, and the insured vehicle, a “1999 Freightliner Tractor” with a specified vehicle identification number. Knispel points out that this identification card states: “The coverage provided by this policy meets the minimum liability insurance requirements as prescribed by law.” He says the card contains no restrictions or limitations on the liability coverage and in particular does not contain any reference to the rental exclusion clause. Knispel argues that this card adds to the confusion regarding the meaning of the policy because it says the coverage provided meets the minimum liability requirements prescribed by law. This argument is meritless because Knispel does not demonstrate that the rental exclusion clause somehow causes the policy to fail to afford the minimum coverage prescribed by law and, therefore, does not show how the card is misleading.

This page is contained in the version of the policy submitted by Knispel, but not in the version submitted by Northland.

¶ 12 Moreover, we disagree with Knispel’s assessment that “it is [only] by sheer luck that a reasonable insured stumbles upon the one-page [rental exclusion] endorsement found in the back of the policy.” It is not difficult to figure out that there are several endorsements or where to find them.

¶ 13 The first page of the policy is a page entitled “Common Policy Declarations.” It states that the policy consists of the “following coverage parts for which a premium is indicated.” Six types of coverage are listed on this declarations page, but only one has a premium indicated. That one is “Commercial Auto/Garage Coverage Part.” Policy coverage limits are not provided on this page.

In footnote 1, we explain why we treat this page as the first page of the policy. But even if the true policy has a cover sheet and a “quick reference” page preceding the page we treat as the first page, it would not affect our conclusion.

¶ 14 The next six pages of the policy consist of “Common Policy Conditions,” such as cancellation rights and policy transfer rights, and two endorsements. These pages do not indicate policy coverage limits. Thus, as Northland points out, nothing to this point in the policy affirmatively provides coverage.

¶ 15 On the eighth page of the policy is a declarations page entitled “Commercial Auto Coverage Form Declarations.” This page is a typical declarations page. It lists Borst’s 1999 Freightliner tractor as the insured vehicle and, among other coverages and limits, provides $1,000,000 coverage for each “accident.” This declarations page states: “Forms and endorsements contained in this policy at its inception: Per Schedule of Forms and Endorsements N-2500 (4/94).” This is a reference to the next page in the policy, designated N-2500 (4/94). This next page lists twenty “forms and endorsements” using alpha/numerical designations and dates, for example, “CA 01 37 (07/01).” This page is not difficult to find. It does not provide descriptive titles for the forms and endorsements–which would be better–but it does inform a reasonable insured that there are several forms and endorsements affecting coverage. Thereafter, finding these forms and endorsements is simple because they follow just one page later, after the identification card page. It is true that one must read through the forms and endorsements to ascertain their meaning, but it is not true that they are hard to find.

¶ 16 In sum, we conclude that, although the policy is not a model of clear organization and labeling, there is no contextual ambiguity that produces a reasonable alternative meaning for the rental exclusion clause.

The parties spend time disputing the meaning of various terms in the policy, such as “non-truckman” and “non-trucking use,” and whether these terms have established meaning within the trucking community. We conclude that an understanding of these terms is unnecessary to an understanding of the rental exclusion clause and that such terms do not, either separately or in combination with other aspects of the policy, render the rental exclusion ambiguous. In addition, Knispel argues that we should not rely on a Brost affidavit submitted by Northland because it was submitted late and it contains Brost’s irrelevant subjective understanding of the policy. Like the circuit court, we conclude that we need not address this dispute because we do not rely on the disputed Brost affidavit.

Illusory Coverage

¶ 17 Knispel also argues that Northland should not have been dismissed from the case on summary judgment because the coverage in Brost’s Northland policy is rendered illusory by the rental exclusion clause and, therefore, Northland should be precluded from relying on the rental exclusion to deny coverage. In this part of his brief, Knispel does not cite to any legal authority. Instead, he simply makes the following argument:

1) Under the Northland policy, the rental exclusion endorsement excludes coverage when Brost’s semi tractor is used in the business of anyone to whom the tractor is rented.

2) There is no dispute that when Brost purchased his Northland policy, his semi tractor was leased by Brost to Valley Express.

3) The lease contract between Brost and Valley Express provides that “Valley Express will have exclusive control, possession and use of said Equipment which shall not, at any time during the term of this Contract, be operated for any purpose other than the business of Valley Express….”

4) “As a result [of items 1, 2, and 3 above], it is appropriate to assume that Northland had full knowledge of the terms of [Brost’s] lease regarding the ‘covered auto’ as of the inception of the policy or, at a minimum, had full opportunity to avail itself of those terms.”

5) Therefore, coverage was illusory because the interaction of the rental exclusion clause and the lease means that the rental exclusion was in effect at all times during the term of the policy.

¶ 18 In response, Northland cites several cases from other jurisdictions to support the proposition that coverage is not rendered illusory by a rental exclusion clause because coverage is provided when the insured vehicle, although leased to another, is not being operated in the other’s business, such as personal errands or traveling to and from the driver’s home. Northland, however, does not analyze any of the nine cases and does not even provide pinpoint cites. Apparently Northland believes we should read the nine cases and figure out on our own whether those cases involve comparable policy language and legal reasoning supporting Northland’s view. We decline to do so.

¶ 19 Despite Northland’s inadequate response, we reject Knispel’s argument that coverage was illusory because Knispel has failed to present a developed argument.

¶ 20 Illusory coverage is against public policy. Malik v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2001 WI App 82, ¶ ¶ 17-18, 243 Wis.2d 27, 625 N.W.2d 640. In Link v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin, 185 Wis.2d 394, 400, 518 N.W.2d 261 (Ct.App.1994), we explained that coverage is illusory when benefits would not be paid under any reasonably expected set of circumstances.

¶ 21 There are many flaws in Knispel’s argument, but it is sufficient to identify two.

¶ 22 First, Knispel ignores the fact that he is not the insured. Our non-exhaustive research indicates that cases addressing allegations that a policy provides illusory coverage involve insureds arguing that they have purchased illusory coverage. See, e.g., Remiszewski v. American Family Ins. Co., 2004 WI App 175, ¶ ¶ 3-4, 12, 15, 276 Wis.2d 167, 687 N.W.2d 809, review denied, 2004 WI 138, 276 Wis.2d 30, 689 N.W.2d 57 (No.2003AP2653); Van Erden, 271 Wis.2d 163, ¶ ¶ 6, 33; Janssen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2003 WI App 183, ¶ ¶ 2-3, 8-15, 266 Wis.2d 430, 668 N.W.2d 820; Link, 185 Wis.2d at 396- 401; Hoglund v. Secura Ins., 176 Wis.2d 265, 267-69, 500 N.W.2d 354 (Ct.App.1993). Knispel fails to explain why a non-insured party may compel an insurance company to provide coverage based on the argument that coverage is illusory. If Brost purchased a policy that provides him no benefit because of his lease arrangement with Valley Express, that might be a matter between Brost and the insurer, or between Brost and the agent who sold him the policy, but it is not apparent why Knispel is a person who may force Northland to provide coverage. Knispel’s argument is inadequate because he does not address the matter.

¶ 23 Second, Knispel’s argument assumes that, when courts construe a policy to determine whether some part of its coverage is illusory, the court may look outside the policy to the particular facts of the case at hand. This proposition is not self-evident. Our non-exhaustive review of cases indicates that Wisconsin courts typically assess whether coverage is illusory by looking to the policy and governing law, not to the particular circumstances of the insured. See, e.g., Link, 185 Wis.2d at 396-401 (although definition in policy prevented insured from collecting under the policy’s UIM provision, UIM coverage was not illusory because there are other circumstances in which the insured could collect under the UIM provision); Hoglund, 176 Wis.2d at 270- 71 (UIM coverage was illusory both because the policy provided UIM motorists coverage only when a tortfeasor’s policy limits are $25,000 or less and by statute an insured motorist must have $25,000 in coverage and because another policy term defined out-of-state vehicles uninsured if its policy limit is less than $25,000).

Even if we could look outside the policy to the particular facts of a case in an effort to determine whether coverage is illusory, something we doubt, Knispel does not support his assertion that “it is appropriate to assume that Northland had full knowledge of the terms of its insured’s lease regarding the ‘covered auto’ as of the inception of the policy or, at a minimum, had full opportunity to avail itself of those terms.” Knispel does not provide record cites. We decline to search the record for facts relevant to this topic, unassisted by either party.

Conclusion

¶ 24 As did the circuit court, we reject Knispel’s argument that the endorsement was contextually ambiguous and that the rental exclusion clause had the effect of making coverage illusory. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Northland.

Order affirmed.

United States Court of Appeals,

Seventh Circuit.

TRANSPERSONNEL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Argued Nov. 29, 2004.

Decided Aug. 29, 2005.

SYKES, Circuit Judge.

This is an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 by Transpersonnel, Inc., an employer of truck drivers, against Roadway Express, Inc., a motor carrier that leased drivers from Transpersonnel. The two-count complaint sought judicial declarations that: (1) Roadway was an “employer” of the leased drivers for purposes of potential withdrawal liability under a multiemployer pension plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), pursuant to the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (“MPPAA”), 29 U.S.C. § § 1381, et seq.; and (2) Roadway was required to indemnify Transpersonnel for potential future liability Transpersonnel may incur pursuant to the MPPAA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Transpersonnel with respect to the first question and declined to decide the second because it was either premature or moot. We reverse.

I. Background

Transpersonnel employs truck drivers and Roadway is a motor carrier. In 1986 the parties entered into a written agreement under which Roadway would lease drivers employed by Transpersonnel for use in Roadway’s trucking operation. At the time the lease was executed, Transpersonnel, in its capacity as the employer of the leased drivers, was party to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the Teamsters Local Union No. 705. Under the terms of the CBA, Transpersonnel was obligated to make contributions to the Union’s pension fund on behalf of the employees. Roadway was not a party to the CBA and had no contractual relationship with Teamsters Local 705. The lease agreement between Transpersonnel and Roadway addressed the obligation to contribute to the pension fund as follows:

[Transpersonnel] will have sole control and responsibility for and will be sole signatory under and connected with all labor negotiations, grievances, collective bargaining agreements and related items concerning drivers furnished to [Roadway] under this Agreement.

….

[Transpersonnel] will pay the drivers’ wages and provide any of the benefits required by any applicable bargaining agreement between [Transpersonnel] and any authorized representative of any collective bargaining unit which may be in effect ….

….

[Roadway] agrees to reimburse [Transpersonnel], at cost, for all applicable employee benefits, including … pension fund contributions, and other similar items paid to or on behalf of [Transpersonnel’s] employees as a result of a union agreement obligation ….

In 1992 Roadway terminated the lease agreement, and the parties apparently went their separate ways. At some point after the lease agreement was terminated, Transpersonnel ceased making contributions to the pension fund, although the record does not disclose the reason for the discontinuation or precisely when payments stopped. Ten years after the lease agreement was terminated, the pension fund issued a demand on Transpersonnel for partial withdrawal liability in the amount of $441,846.96, pursuant to the MPPAA, 29 U.S.C. § § 1381, 1382. Withdrawal liability is the amount owed a pension plan by an employer which reduces or ceases its plan contributions prior to fully funding the liabilities of the plan attributable to the employer. 29 U.S.C. § § 1383, 1385. The pension fund has made no claim against Roadway and has never suggested that Roadway bears any withdrawal liability under the MPPAA. Transpersonnel has denied liability to the pension fund and requested arbitration of the pension fund’s demand pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(1). Arbitration has not yet taken place, and the issues of whether Transpersonnel has incurred withdrawal liability and, if so, the amount of that liability, have yet to be determined.

Pending arbitration, Transpersonnel filed a two-count complaint seeking declaratory judgments that Roadway was an “employer” of the personnel at issue for purposes of potential withdrawal liability under the MPPAA and that Roadway was contractually obligated to reimburse Transpersonnel for any withdrawal liability that may possibly be assessed by an arbitrator at a later date.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted Transpersonnel’s motion with respect to its claim in Count I that Roadway was an employer of the leased drivers for purposes of the MPPAA. The district court held that Transpersonnel and Roadway were “joint employers” for purposes of withdrawal liability under the MPPAA by virtue of Roadway’s obligation under the lease agreement to reimburse Transpersonnel for contributions required of Transpersonnel under its CBAs with the Teamsters.

With respect to Count II of the complaint, the district court held that the claim was premature and would not ripen until an arbitrator had determined whether a withdrawal for purposes of the MPPAA had occurred and the amount, if any, of Transpersonnel’s withdrawal liability. The court also held that even if the issue were ripe for adjudication, it need not address the merits because its conclusion that Roadway was an MPPAA “employer” had provided Transpersonnel all the relief it was seeking–namely, a declaration effectively compelling Roadway to participate in the arbitration. Accordingly, the district court held in the alternative that Count II was moot.

II. Discussion

We review the district court’s award of summary judgment de novo. Hildebrandt v. Ill. Dep’t of Natural Res., 347 F.3d 1014, 1024 (7th Cir.2003). The issue presented is whether Roadway’s relationship with the leased drivers, the obligations of which were defined by its written lease agreement with Transpersonnel, brings Roadway within the ambit of an “employer” as that term is used in the MPPAA. As mentioned briefly above, the MPPAA imposes liability on an employer withdrawing from a multiemployer pension plan in order to ensure that the withdrawing employer does not leave a plan with vested pension obligations that are only partially funded. Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund v. Bomar Nat’l, Inc., 253 F.3d 1011, 1014 (7th Cir.2001). The concept of withdrawal liability attempts to avoid a situation in which the financial burden of funding vested pension benefits is shifted onto other employers participating in the multiemployer plan and, ultimately, to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Id. The pertinent portion of the MPPAA provides: “If an employer withdraws from a multiemployer plan in a complete withdrawal or a partial withdrawal, then the employer is liable to the plan in the amount determined under this part to be the withdrawal liability.” 29 U.S.C. § 1381(a).

The MPPAA itself does not define the word “employer,” but this court has done so, adopting a definition consistent with that used in other circuits. In Central States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc. (“Central Transport “), we held that an “employer” under the MPPAA is “a person who is obligated to contribute to a plan either as a direct employer or in the interest of an employer of the plan’s participants.” 85 F.3d 1282, 1287 (7th Cir.1996) (emphasis added) (quoting Seaway Port Authority v. Duluth-Superior ILA Marine Ass’n Restated Pension Plan, 920 F.2d 503, 507 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1218, 111 S.Ct. 2827, 115 L.Ed.2d 997 (1991)). See also Carriers Container Council, Inc. v. Mobile Steamship Assoc. Inc.-Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, AFL-CIO Pension Plan & Trust, 896 F.2d 1330, 1343 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 926, 111 S.Ct. 308, 112 L.Ed.2d 261 (1990); Korea Shipping Corp. v. N.Y. Shipping Ass’n-Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n Pension Trust Fund, 880 F.2d 1531, 1537 (2nd Cir.1989).

We emphasized in Central Transport that “[t]he appropriate inquiry is whether the alleged employer had an obligation to contribute [to the pension fund] as well as the nature of that obligation.” 85 F.3d at 1287. The “obligation to contribute” is created by contract: “[T]he nature of the obligation to contribute [is] contractual, and therefore the party ‘who is signatory to a contract creating the obligation to contribute is the employer for purposes of establishing withdrawal liability.’ ” Id. (quoting Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund, 63 F.3d 703, 707 (8th Cir.1995)).

The import of the decision in Central Transport is clear–an “employer” for purposes of MPPAA liability is an entity that has assumed a contractual obligation to make contributions to a pension fund. In explaining this conclusion, the Central Transport panel drew heavily on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Rheem, a case involving a fact pattern very similar to that presented here. In Rheem, the plaintiff leased fifteen truck drivers from a lessor that was signatory to a CBA, establishing the lessor’s obligation to contribute to a pension fund on behalf of the leased drivers. When the lessor withdrew from the pension fund, the fund asserted that the plaintiff lessee, by virtue of its lease agreement, was a “joint employer” for purposes of liability under the MPPAA. The Eighth Circuit rejected the pension fund’s position, holding that it was the lessor, and not the plaintiff lessee, that “was contractually bound to make pension contributions,” and that it was the lessor, not the lessee, that had “signed the collective bargaining agreement creating the obligation to contribute to [the pension fund].” Rheem, 63 F.3d at 707. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the pension fund’s attempt to impose liability on the lessee failed because there was “no document that could create a contractual obligation for Rheem to contribute to [the fund].” Id.

Transpersonnel contends that Central Transport and Rheem are distinguishable because here there is a provision in the lease agreement requiring Roadway as lessee to reimburse the lessor/employer Transpersonnnel for the latter’s contributions to the drivers’ pension fund. The district court relied upon Roadway’s reimbursement obligation to conclude that Roadway was a “joint employer” for purposes of the MPPAA.

In our view, however, Roadway’s reimbursement obligation does not take this case outside the core holdings of Central Transport and Rheem. Stated differently, the obligation to reimburse for contributions made by another is not the equivalent of an obligation to contribute in the first instance, and this distinction is important for purposes of Central Transport’ s definition of “employer” under the MPPAA.

It is undisputed in this case that Roadway had no agreement whatsoever with the Union and no contractual obligation to make contributions to the pension fund. In its lease agreement with Transpersonnel, Roadway agreed to reimburse Transpersonnel for whatever pension plan contributions Transpersonnel made for the employees in question pursuant to its own contractual obligation to the Union. More specifically, the lease agreement states that Roadway “agrees to reimburse Lessor, at cost, for all … pension fund contributions … paid … on behalf of Lessor’s employees as a result of a union agreement obligation.” By its terms, this obligation of reimbursement does not arise until after a contribution has been made, and extends only to amounts actually contributed. If Transpersonnel made pension fund contributions that were too small, or omitted contributions, the pension fund could not look to Roadway for the balance as Roadway was only contractually obligated to reimburse Transpersonnel for the actual amounts Transpersonnel contributed. Roadway would have no obligation to make up the difference because it was not contractually obligated to contribute to the pension fund in the first place. Central States, 85 F.3d at 1287.

Moreover, under the terms of the lease agreement, Transpersonnel retained sole responsibility for calculating the amounts it owed to the pension fund pursuant to its CBA with the Union, and Transpersonnel was required to make those payments with its own funds. After the calculations were made and payments contributed, Transpersonnel could turn to Roadway for reimbursement of amounts actually paid, but the lease agreement did not permit Transpersonnel to bill Roadway for amounts owed to the fund that had not previously been paid by Transpersonnel pursuant to its contractual obligation to contribute. There is nothing in the parties’ contract that would have permitted Roadway to dispute the amounts paid into the fund by Transpersonnel, to make its own calculation of the amount owed, to request a refund of erroneously large payments, to have any input into the terms of the CBA, or, most importantly, to make any payments directly to the pension fund at all.

Accordingly, we find no merit to Transpersonnel’s suggestion that it was “merely a conduit” through which pension plan payments passed from Roadway to the fund. The terms of the lease agreement establish that Transpersonnel was the sole entity “contractually bound to make pension contributions” for purposes of “employer” status under the MPPAA. Rheem, 63 F.3d at 707. Simply put, nothing in the reimbursement provision of the lease agreement imposes a contractual obligation upon Roadway to make contributions to the pension fund.

The district court cited Central Transport but did not apply it, concluding that the case did not answer the question of whether “more than one entity may qualify as an ’employer’ under the MPPAA.” But the definition of “employer” adopted in Central Transport is one of general application and does not turn on whether only one–or more than one–putative MPPAA “employer” is asserted. Indeed, Rheem–cited at length and with approval in Central Transport— specifically addressed whether more than one entity may qualify as an employer under the MPPAA.

As we have noted, at issue in Rheem was whether the lessor and lessee of truck drivers could be considered “joint employers” for purposes of MPPAA withdrawal liability–exactly the same question presented here. See Rheem, 63 F.3d at 705. In Central Transport, this court was faced with the question of whether to disregard the corporate form of the contractual obligor as a means to ascertain the “true employer” and avoid a potentially fraudulent arrangement involving insolvent, alter ego shell corporations. Central Transport, 85 F.3d at 1287. We characterized the possibility of fraud as constituting an exception to the general rule established in Rheem, and held that in the absence of fraud allegations, an entity not contractually obligated to make contributions to a pension fund would not be considered an “employer” for purposes of withdrawal liability under the MPPAA. Id. In Rheem there was no occasion to “look behind the contractual obligor” because there were no allegations that the relationship between the lessor and lessee was a “sham” or a “potentially fraudulent arrangement.” Rheem, 63 F.3d at 707 n. 5. The same is true here.

The district court found support for its conclusion that Roadway was an MPPAA “employer” in the holdings of three district court cases, each of which predate our decision in Central Transport and the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Rheem. To the extent that these cases apply a definition of an MPPAA “employer” that differs from that adopted by this court in Central Transport, they are inconsistent with currently applicable circuit precedent and, in any event, are not controlling here.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Although 29 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(1) specifies that “[a]ny dispute between an employer and the plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan … shall be resolved through arbitration,” the threshold question of whether a company is an “employer” may be submitted to a court prior to arbitration. See Banner Indus. v. Cent. States Pension Fund, 875 F.2d 1285, 1293 (7th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1003, 110 S.Ct. 563, 107 L.Ed.2d 558 (1989); see also Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Cent. States SE & SW Areas Pension Fund, 63 F.3d 703, 705-06 (8th Cir.1995); Bd. of Tr. of Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.-Pension Fund v. Centra, 983 F.2d 495, 501 (3rd Cir.1992); Mason & Dixon Tank Lines, Inc. v. Cent. States Pension Fund, 852 F.2d 156, 167 (6th Cir.1988). “Since only an ’employer’ is required to arbitrate, the district court may address this threshold question before arbitration.” Mason & Dixon Tank Lines, 852 F.2d at 167.

FN2. The parties have not raised the dismissal of Count II on appeal, and therefore we do not address it further.

FN3. The lease agreement provides that “Lessor will have sole control and responsibility for … collective bargaining agreements and related items concerning drivers furnished to Lessee under this Agreement.”

FN4. This case is distinguishable from Korea Shipping Corp. v. NYSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund, 880 F.2d 1531, 1539 (2nd Cir.1989), which involved cargo shippers that were contractually obligated to make pension fund contributions but whose contributions were processed through the New York Shipping Association (“NYSA”) for “immediate transmittal” to the New York Shipping Association-International Longshoremen’s Association Pension Fund. The Second Circuit held that under these circumstances the NYSA was merely a “conduit” for the shipper’s contractually required pension contributions. Id. Here, Transpersonnel had the sole and complete contribution obligation and can hardly be characterized as a mere “conduit.”

FN5. The cases cited by the district court were Am. Stevedoring Corp. v. Burlington Indus., Inc., No. 85 C 4180, 1985 WL 5057 (N.D.Ill. Dec.19, 1985); Cent. Pa. Teamster’s Pension Fund v. Serv. Group, Inc., 645 F.Supp. 996 (E.D.Pa.1985); and Schaffer v. Eagle Indus., Inc., 726 F.Supp. 113 (E.D.Pa.1989).