A fatal trucking accident has landed Progressive Express Insurance Company in federal court, where it’s asking a judge to decide whether it has to cover a claim tied to a deadly crash. The case is drawing attention in the insurance industry for its focus on commercial auto policy language and coverage.
Here’s what’s in the complaint: Progressive is providing a defense for Lee Timber Company, Inc. after a crash that happened on or about February 19, 2024. According to the filing, Ramon Camejo, described as an employee or agent of DTA Trucking, LLC, was driving a 2009 Freightliner tractor owned, leased, or controlled by DTA. He was pulling a 1997 logging trailer owned, leased, or controlled by Lee Timber. The complaint says Camejo was delivering a load of logs for DTA when the truck collided with a car driven by Ramesh S. Maharaj, with Kamin H. Maharaj as a passenger. Kamin H. Maharaj died as a result of the accident.
The family of the deceased and Ramesh S. Maharaj are suing Lee Timber in state court, claiming the company was negligent in maintaining and inspecting the trailer. The complaint also alleges Lee Timber was negligent in hiring, training, and supervising Camejo.
Progressive is defending Lee Timber in that lawsuit, but only under a reservation of rights. In other words, the insurer is doing so while it seeks a court ruling on whether it actually has to pay under the policy. Progressive’s position is that neither the truck nor the trailer involved in the accident qualifies as an “insured auto” under the policy. The company argues that the accident did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an “insured auto” as defined in the policy, and therefore, it has no duty to defend or indemnify Lee Timber, Camejo, or any other party in the underlying lawsuit.
The underlying lawsuit, filed in the 20th Judicial Circuit Court of Glades County, Florida, is built on allegations that Lee Timber failed to check Camejo’s driving record, didn’t ensure he was properly trained, and didn’t keep the trailer in safe condition. The complaint also alleges that Camejo drove carelessly, failed to keep a proper lookout, and operated the truck in a negligent and unsafe manner.
Progressive’s complaint does not cite specific policy clauses but repeatedly states that the vehicles involved were not “insured autos” and that the accident did not arise from the ownership, maintenance, or use of an insured vehicle as defined by the policy.
Progressive is asking the court for a declaration of its rights and liabilities under the policy, as well as for an award of reasonable taxable costs incurred in bringing the lawsuit.
At this point, the case is newly filed and no final decision has been made. The court’s ruling on whether Progressive must provide coverage, defend, or indemnify the defendants will be closely watched by insurance professionals, especially those focused on commercial auto liability and policy coverage disputes. For those in the business, it’s a reminder that what’s listed on a policy - and how it’s defined—can make all the difference when a claim lands on your desk. Sometimes, even the most experienced insurers need a judge to sort out what’s covered and what isn’t.
