Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin Instagram
Get a Quote
Uncategorised

Federal Filings for Owned Trucks: Why MCS-90 Does Not Require Every Owned Truck on Your Policy, and What the Courts Actually Say

Federal Filings for Owned Trucks: What Insurers Get Wrong About MCS-90

Federal filings for owned trucks are often misunderstood by commercial auto insurers. A common claim is that once a motor carrier files a BMC-91X and has an MCS-90 endorsement, every truck or trailer it owns must stay scheduled on its auto liability policy, even if that equipment is parked or leased to another company.

Federal law and court precedent do not support that position.

What federal filings for owned trucks actually do

Federal filings for owned trucks exist to show that a motor carrier has met minimum financial responsibility requirements under the Motor Carrier Act. The MCS-90 endorsement is part of that framework. Its function is to protect the public if a judgment is entered against a motor carrier in circumstances covered by federal law.

The FMCSA describes the MCS-90 as a form attached to a liability policy to assure compliance with financial responsibility rules. It is not described as a vehicle scheduling mandate.
External reference: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/form-mcs-90-endorsement-motor-carrier-policies-insurance-public-liability-under

Federal filings for owned trucks are tied to operations, not title

The controlling regulations apply to for-hire motor carriers operating motor vehicles transporting property in interstate or foreign commerce. The operative words are operating and transporting. Ownership alone is not the trigger.

See 49 CFR 387.3 and 49 CFR 387.7.
External reference: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-387/subpart-A/section-387.3

This distinction matters in disputes over federal filings for owned trucks because it aligns with how courts analyze MCS-90 coverage. Courts look at what the vehicle was doing at the time of the loss, not who held title.

Canal Insurance Co. v. Coleman clarifies the scope of federal filings for owned trucks

The strongest appellate decision on this issue is Canal Insurance Co. v. Coleman, 625 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2010).

In Coleman, the Fifth Circuit held that the MCS-90 covers only liability for the transportation of property. The accident involved a truck that was not transporting property at the time of the loss. Because that condition was not met, the MCS-90 did not apply.

External reference: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1543287.html

This decision survived appeal and is frequently cited because it rejects blanket interpretations of the MCS-90 that ignore statutory limits.

Why Coleman matters for owned trucks that are leased out

Insurers sometimes rely on the MCS-90 language stating coverage applies regardless of whether a vehicle is specifically described in the policy. The Fifth Circuit rejected reading that clause in isolation. The court explained that doing so would erase the endorsement’s limiting language and statutory prerequisites.

For federal filings for owned trucks, this means the MCS-90 does not automatically follow ownership. It applies only when the vehicle is subject to the financial responsibility requirements at the time of the loss.

Leasing owned trucks does not violate federal filing requirements

It is common for trucking companies to own equipment and lease it to other motor carriers. When possession and control are transferred under a valid lease, the lessee becomes the operating carrier. The lessee’s insurer and filings respond to losses arising from those operations.

If ownership alone required insurance coverage, national leasing companies would be forced to insure every unit they own rather than relying on operating carriers. That is not how the industry or the law functions.

What insurers are really doing when they refuse removal

When an insurer refuses to remove a unit and cites federal filings for owned trucks, it is often an underwriting preference rather than a legal mandate. Insurers are allowed to impose underwriting rules. They are not correct when they present those rules as federal law.

The difference matters for brokers and insureds who are trying to manage premiums and accurately reflect risk.

Best practice when disputing federal filings for owned trucks

If an insurer refuses to remove a unit, ask one direct question:
Is this refusal based on underwriting policy, or on a specific statute, regulation, or court decision?

If the answer cites federal law, Canal v. Coleman is a clear counterexample showing that MCS-90 does not create ownership-based scheduling requirements.

The regulations focus on operating a motor vehicle, not owning one

The FMCSA financial responsibility rules apply to for-hire motor carriers operating motor vehicles transporting property in interstate or foreign commerce.

The requirement itself is phrased in operational terms: “No motor carrier shall operate a motor vehicle” until it has the required financial responsibility in effect.

So if a carrier is not operating a particular unit because it is leased out with possession and control transferred to another motor carrier, that fact pattern is a poor fit for an insurer’s claim that federal filings force the unit to remain scheduled purely because of ownership.

Courts describe the MCS-90 as a surety-like backstop, not expanded contracted coverage

Courts commonly describe the MCS-90 as functioning like a suretyship for the benefit of the public. The Tenth Circuit’s en banc decision in Carolina Casualty Insurance Co. v. Yeates is a leading citation on this point.

This framing matters in day-to-day insurance disputes because it separates two different questions:

  • Public protection question: If an injured member of the public gets a judgment in a situation covered by the MCS-90, is the insurer required to pay up to the minimum?

  • Policy administration question: Does federal law require the insurer to keep every owned unit scheduled, rated, and premium-bearing?

Those are not the same question, and the MCS-90 is not designed to be a fleet-scheduling mandate.

What this means for removals: a better way to frame the request

When you ask to delete a tractor or trailer that is leased out, the cleanest approach is to frame it as underwriting and documentation, not as a fight about whether the carrier “can” do it.

A strong submission package usually includes:

  • The executed lease showing transfer of possession and control (and the effective dates)

  • Evidence the lessee is the operating motor carrier (authority, insurance, and filings appropriate to its operations)

  • A written statement that the lessor is not dispatching, controlling, or operating the unit during the lease term

If the insurer still refuses, ask them to say plainly whether this is:

  • an underwriting rule or internal policy preference, or

  • a claimed legal requirement, with citations

When an insurer’s explanation is “due to filings, if it is owned it must remain scheduled,” Coleman is a direct, citable counterweight because it rejects blanket readings that ignore the endorsement’s limiting language and statutory purpose.

A reality check: carriers can still take underwriting positions

Even if federal law does not require “everything-owned must be scheduled,” an insurer can decide it will not write a risk unless the insured agrees to certain scheduling practices. That is an underwriting choice. What they should not do is treat the MCS-90 as a universal legal excuse.

If the carrier’s true concern is vicarious liability, grey-area control, or claims handling, the solution is usually tighter documentation and endorsements, not forced scheduling of equipment that is genuinely off-risk and off-operation.

FAQ (Quick Questions and Answers): Federal Filings for Owned Trucks

Does the MCS-90 require every owned tractor and trailer to be listed on the policy schedule?
No. The MCS-90 is not written as an ownership-based scheduling rule. Courts analyze whether the vehicle and loss are within the financial responsibility framework for regulated motor carrier operations, not simply whether the insured holds title.

What does Canal Insurance Co. v. Coleman actually hold?
The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the insurer and held that the MCS-90 “covers only liability for the transportation of property,” rejecting a blanket reading that would make the endorsement apply anytime a motor carrier is required to carry an MCS-90.

The endorsement says “regardless of whether the vehicle is specifically described in the policy.” Does that mean all vehicles are covered?
Not automatically. In Coleman, the court explained that this phrase cannot be read to erase the endorsement’s limiting language about which vehicles are “subject to” the Motor Carrier Act financial responsibility requirements.

If a unit is leased out, who should insure it?
Usually the operating motor carrier insures the unit during its period of possession and control. The exact answer depends on the lease terms and how the unit is actually used.

Can an insurer still refuse to remove a unit for underwriting reasons?
Yes. An insurer can set underwriting rules. The point is that “federal filings require it because you own it” is often asserted too broadly, and Coleman is a strong case to push back on that framing.

What federal sources define when the financial responsibility rules apply?
FMCSA regulations apply to for-hire motor carriers operating motor vehicles transporting property in interstate or foreign commerce, and they prohibit operating without the required financial responsibility in effect.

Is this legal advice?
No. This is general information for risk management and insurance placement. For a specific dispute, have coverage counsel review the lease, the policy forms, and the filings for the exact authority and operations involved.