An insurer that allegedly agreed to defend - then walked away - is now facing a federal lawsuit from the carrier left holding the bill.
Great West Casualty Company filed suit on February 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing United Specialty Insurance Company of reneging on a written commitment to defend two parties in a trucking accident case - and leaving Great West to pick up the tab.
The dispute traces back to an April 30, 2022, accident in Chaves County, New Mexico. Ranjeet Singh, identified as the president and driver of DTF Trans Inc., was hauling a trailer leased from DTL Transport, Inc. when the incident occurred. A personal injury lawsuit was later filed in February 2025 by Antonia Puentes Landeros, individually and on behalf of a minor, Victoria Antonella Marin Puentes, naming both Singh and DTL as defendants.
Both companies had insurance in the picture. DTL was covered under a commercial lines policy issued by Great West. Trans and Singh were covered under an automobile liability policy issued by United Specialty, which also listed DTL as an additional insured - a requirement under the trailer lease agreement between the two companies. That lease obligated Trans to carry at least $1,000,000 in combined single-limit coverage and to name DTL on the certificate of insurance as an additional insured.
Here is where the story takes a turn. According to the filing, Great West reached out to United Specialty on June 9, 2022 - just weeks after the accident - to confirm that it would accept DTL's defense if a lawsuit materialized. The following day, United Specialty allegedly agreed to assume the defense of both DTL and Singh, with no reservation of rights beyond the policy limit.
Nearly three years later, when the personal injury lawsuit was actually filed, United Specialty allegedly reversed course. Great West says it sent tender requests on June 9, July 9, and October 29, 2025, all of which went unanswered in substance. According to the filing, United Specialty offered no explanation for its refusal.
With no help forthcoming, Great West stepped in, providing coverage to Singh and DTL under its own policy while reserving its right to disclaim. It then took the matter to federal court, seeking a declaration that United Specialty's coverage is primary and Great West's is excess, along with reimbursement for the defense costs it has been carrying alone.
No final determination has been made in the case, which remains in its early stages.
For insurance professionals, the takeaway is sharp: a written agreement to defend is only as reliable as the insurer's willingness to follow through. When that commitment evaporates without explanation, the co-insurer left covering the gap may have no choice but to litigate - and the cost of that breakdown extends well beyond the original claim.
The case is Great West Casualty Company v. United Specialty Insurance Company, DTL Transport, Inc., and Ranjeet Singh, Case No. 2:26-cv-00320.
