Perry

Perry v. Harco National Insurance

Good Law
129 F.3d 1072·97 Daily Journal DAR 14273·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 33154·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8801
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 21, 1997No. 96-35806California1,495 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Trott, J.

OVERVIEW

Helene Perry (Appellant), administrator of the estate of her late husband, Kenneth Perry (Perry), appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Harco National Insurance Company (Harco). Harco insured Sunset Express, Inc. (Sunset), the motor carrier for whom Appellant’s husband was driving when he was killed. Appellant contends the MCS-90 endorsement (Endorsement) in Sunset’s insurance policy provided coverage for her husband’s death because he was an independent contractor of Sunset’s and not an excluded employee. The district court, using the definitions in the regulations mandating the Endorsement, concluded that Perry was an employee for the purpose of the Endorsement. Because Perry was an “employee” under the plain language of the regulations applicable to the endorsement, and therefore was excluded from coverage, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

On April 11, 1990, Perry was killed in an accident while he was driving a truck owned by his employer, M & P Transportation Company, Inc. (M & P), and leased to Sunset.

Appellant sought recovery in state court from M & P and Sunset both personally and on behalf of Perry’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.