Please click the heading "Ohio Insurance" above to refresh this page and see latest posts.
My photo
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Currently an attorney and insurance industry professional. Mr. Stoll is a commercial lawyer, arbitrator and mediator who also serves as insurance coverage counsel and advisor to numerous businesses throughout the country. He is also a licensed insurance agent/broker.

March 20, 2012

COURT OF APPEALS - MCS-90 / STATUTORY EMPLOYEE

United Fin. Cas. Co. v. Abe Hershberger & Sons Trucking Ltd., (10th Dist., 2-14-12), 2012-Ohio-561.
TRUCKING, MCS-90, 49 C.F.R. 390.5, PASSENGER AS STATUTORY EMPLOYEE
   
The Court interpreted the term "employee" in the federal motor carrier safety regulations, which is found in 49 C.F.R. 390.5 as it pertained to a passenger/instructor in the vehicle at the time of loss.

The Court found that nothing in section 390.5 limits an independent contractor's status as a statutory employee to times when the individual is actually operating a commercial motor vehicle. The regulatory language referring to an independent contractor "in the course of  operating a commercial motor vehicle" must relate to the second requirement under that section-that the employee directly affects commercial motor vehicle safety.  If he does so, then he is a statutory employee under 390.5. 

The plain language of the regulation requires only that the individual directly affects commercial motor vehicle safety while in the course of his or her employment, a requirement that may be satisfied by operation of a commercial motor vehicle.  Satisfaction of that  requirement, however, is not limited to actually driving a commercial motor vehicle. In fact, a myriad of courts have held that a passenger in a commercial vehicle may qualify as an  employee under 390.5.  READ THE CASE

Questions concerning coverage under MCS-90?  We have the experience.  Contact Ed directly.

No comments: