Canal Insurance asks court to block liability in trucking injury suit

Canal Insurance Seeks to Block Liability in Missouri Trucking Injury Lawsuit: What You Need to Know

In a significant legal move, Canal Insurance Company has asked a Missouri federal court to rule that it has no obligation to cover a trucking company and a major railway in a workplace injury lawsuit filed in 2025. The case, centered around an incident at a Norfolk Southern railyard in Kansas City, Missouri, involves an injured truck driver, Matthew Perisho, and raises critical questions about insurance coverage in the trucking industry. This article, optimized for US readers and Google SEO, details the lawsuit, Canal’s arguments, the implications for the trucking sector, and steps for stakeholders to navigate similar disputes, drawing on recent court filings and industry insights.

Background of the Lawsuit

On August 15, 2025, Canal Insurance Company filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, seeking a declaratory judgment to absolve itself of liability in a lawsuit involving MZI Trucking, Inc. and Norfolk Southern Railway Company. The underlying case stems from an incident on May 3, 2024, when Matthew Perisho, a driver for MZI Trucking, was injured while delivering a mobile container to Norfolk Southern’s railyard at 4800 N. Kimball Drive, Kansas City, Missouri. Perisho alleges he tripped on a concrete block where a kiosk once stood, resulting in severe injuries: a broken left tibia, broken left fibula, and a broken bone in his left foot. He is suing MZI Trucking and Norfolk Southern for negligence, seeking damages for his injuries.

Canal Insurance, MZI’s insurer, argues it should not be required to defend or indemnify either MZI or Norfolk Southern, citing specific policy exclusions and contractual provisions. The case is currently in the complaint phase, with Canal’s claims untested in court, and the outcome will hinge on the interpretation of its insurance policy.

Canal Insurance’s Legal Arguments

Canal’s request to block liability rests on two key points outlined in its complaint:

1. Policy Exclusions for Negligence:

• Canal’s policy includes the Truckers – Uniform Intermodal Interchange Endorsement (UIIE-1), which limits coverage to liability assumed by MZI under Section F.4 of the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement (UIIA). This section excludes coverage for injuries caused by the negligence of the facility operator (Norfolk Southern) or its equipment. Canal argues that Perisho’s injuries resulted from tripping on a concrete block at the railyard, attributable to Norfolk Southern’s negligence, not MZI’s. Thus, the policy does not cover this incident.

1. No Duty to Defend or Indemnify:

• Canal seeks a judicial declaration that it has no duty to defend MZI or Norfolk Southern against Perisho’s claims or to indemnify them for any judgment. The insurer asserts that the policy’s exclusions explicitly bar coverage for injuries caused by the railyard’s conditions, relieving Canal of financial responsibility.

These arguments are not yet proven, as the case awaits judicial review. The court will evaluate the policy language, the UIIA contract, and evidence of negligence to determine Canal’s obligations.

Implications for the Trucking Industry

This lawsuit highlights several critical issues for trucking companies, insurers, and workers in the US:

• Insurance Coverage Disputes: The case underscores the complexity of insurance policies in the trucking industry, where endorsements like UIIE-1 can significantly limit coverage. Trucking companies must carefully review policy terms to understand exclusions, especially for intermodal operations involving railyards or third-party facilities.
• Workplace Safety: Perisho’s injuries point to ongoing safety concerns at railyards, where hazards like uneven surfaces or unmarked obstacles can endanger drivers. This case may push operators like Norfolk Southern to enhance safety protocols.
• Financial Risks: If Canal prevails, MZI and Norfolk Southern could face significant out-of-pocket costs for legal defense and potential damages, emphasizing the need for robust liability coverage.
• Legal Precedent: The outcome could set a precedent for how courts interpret intermodal endorsements, affecting insurers like Canal, which specializes in commercial trucking coverage since 1939.

Public sentiment on X reflects frustration with insurance companies avoiding liability, with users like @Emi72790 criticizing insurers for prioritizing profits over worker protections, though these posts are not legal evidence.

Eligibility to Monitor or Join Similar Disputes

While this case is specific to MZI, Norfolk Southern, and Canal, stakeholders in the trucking industry can take steps to address similar issues:

• Trucking Companies: Ensure policies cover intermodal operations and review exclusions like UIIE-1. Consult with brokers like Amwins to identify coverage gaps.
• Drivers: If injured, file claims promptly and seek legal representation to challenge insurer denials. Workers’ compensation may apply if the employer is liable.
• Insurers and Brokers: Stay updated on court rulings, as this case could influence policy drafting and coverage disputes.

Step-by-Step Process to Navigate Similar Insurance Disputes

For trucking companies, drivers, or insurers facing similar liability disputes, follow these steps:

1. Review Insurance Policy:

• Obtain a copy of your commercial auto or trucking insurance policy.
• Check for endorsements like UIIE-1 or exclusions for third-party negligence (e.g., facility operators).
• Consult an insurance broker or attorney to clarify coverage scope.

1. Document the Incident:

• Collect evidence of the injury or incident, including photos, medical records, and witness statements (e.g., Perisho’s fall on the concrete block).
• File an incident report with your employer and insurer within the required timeframe (often 24–48 hours).

1. File a Claim:

• Submit a claim to your insurer (e.g., Canal) for defense or indemnification, detailing the incident and policy coverage.
• If denied, request a written explanation of the denial, citing specific policy provisions.

1. Seek Legal Representation:

• Hire a transportation or insurance law attorney to challenge denials or file a counterclaim. Firms like The Lyon Firm specialize in product liability and trucking cases.
• Check court dockets (e.g., PACER for Case No. not provided in source) for updates on similar cases.

1. Explore Workers’ Compensation:

• If you’re a driver like Perisho, file a workers’ compensation claim through your employer (MZI) for medical costs and lost wages.
• Contact your state’s workers’ compensation board for guidance (e.g., Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation).

1. Monitor Court Outcomes:

• Follow the Canal v. MZI Trucking case via federal court dockets or news outlets like Insurance Business America for updates.
• Outcomes may influence future policy interpretations or safety regulations.

1. Mitigate Future Risks:

• Trucking companies: Conduct safety audits at delivery sites and negotiate clear liability terms in contracts like the UIIA.
• Drivers: Report hazards to employers and request training on navigating railyards.
• Insurers: Offer policies with broader coverage or clear exclusions to avoid disputes.

Current Status and Next Steps

As of August 19, 2025, the Canal v. MZI Trucking case is in the complaint phase, with no rulings issued. Canal’s claims rely on untested assertions about policy exclusions, and the court will determine if the UIIE-1 endorsement and negligence arguments hold. Stakeholders should:

• Track the Case: Monitor updates via the Western District of Missouri’s docket or legal news platforms like law360.com.
• Act Promptly: If involved in a similar dispute, file claims or legal responses within statutes of limitations (typically 2–3 years for personal injury in Missouri).
• Seek Expert Advice: Consult transportation insurance specialists (e.g., Amwins) or attorneys to navigate complex policies.

Final Thoughts

Canal Insurance’s bid to block liability in the Missouri trucking injury lawsuit reflects the high stakes of insurance coverage disputes in the $800 billion US trucking industry. With Matthew Perisho’s injuries highlighting workplace hazards, and Canal citing exclusions like UIIE-1, the case could reshape how insurers, trucking companies, and railyards handle liability. Trucking stakeholders should review policies, document incidents, and seek legal guidance to protect their interests. For updates, visit insurancebusinessmag.com or check federal court dockets. As the industry watches, this case underscores the need for clearer contracts and safer workplaces to prevent such disputes.