Sixth Circuit Affirms Decision that CGL Policy’s Auto Exclusion Barred

September 27, 2013 | Insurance Coverage

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s decision that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that an exception applied to an auto exclusion in a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy.  

The Case

A Mack truck with an attached tree spade that was owned by a landscaping business in Mississippi allegedly struck the driver’s side of DeShon Ewan’s car. The woman and her husband contended that a CGL policy in favor of the landscaping business covered the accident.

The insurer sought a declaration that the CGL policy did not provide coverage, and the district court agreed. The Ewans appealed.

The Sixth Circuit’s Decision

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.

The circuit court observed that the CGL policy contained an “auto exclusion” that excluded from coverage “[b]odily injury” or “property damage” arising out of the use of any “auto” owned or operated by the insured. The policy defined “auto” as “a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer designed for travel on public roads, including any attached machinery or equipment,” but said that “auto” did not include “mobile equipment.”  The circuit court said that the issue was whether the Mack truck with the attached tree spade was an auto with an attached piece of machinery that was excluded from coverage, or was mobile equipment that was not excluded.

The Sixth Circuit ruled that because the insurer had established that the auto exclusion applied, the Ewans had to show that there was an exception to that exclusion. It then determined that the Ewans had not met their burden of demonstrating that the truck was mobile equipment. Among other things, the circuit court observed that the truck was identified as an “auto” in the auto policy that had been issued to the landscaper at the same time it had acquired the CGL policy.

The case is Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Ewan, No. 12-6190 (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2013).

Share this article:

Related Publications


Get legal updates and news delivered to your inbox