T.H.E. Insurance v. Larsen Intermodal Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the MCS-90 endorsement does not itself create a duty to defend the insured
• holding that the MCS-90 Endorsement gives an insurer a right of reimbursement from its insured as to claims covered by the endorsement but not ordinarily covered under the policy
• noting that “[t]he First Circuit has aptly described the obligation placed upon the insurer by the MCS-90 as one of suretyship”
• stating that under Louisiana law, “an insured is presumed to know the provisions of his policy.”
• recognizing but distinguishing Richards, noting that Richards was not applicable because the case at bar was factually dissimilar due to the presence of a named insured
• purpose of MCS-90 endorsement is to assure that injured members of public are able to collect on judgments obtained against negligent carriers

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).