Canal Insurance Company is asking a Missouri federal court to decide if it must cover a trucking company and a major railway in a workplace injury lawsuit.
On August 15, 2025, Canal Insurance Company filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division. The insurer is seeking a judgment that it does not have to defend or indemnify MZI Trucking, Inc. or Norfolk Southern Railway Company in connection with claims brought by an MZI employee, Matthew Perisho, who was injured while working.
According to the complaint, Perisho, a driver for MZI, alleges that on May 3, 2024, he was delivering a mobile container to a Norfolk Southern railyard at 4800 N. Kimball Drive, Kansas City, Missouri. He claims he tripped on a concrete block where a kiosk had once been situated, resulting in a broken left tibia, broken left fibula, and a broken bone in his left foot. Perisho has sued both MZI and Norfolk Southern in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, alleging that MZI failed to have the required workers’ compensation insurance and that Norfolk Southern was negligent in maintaining the premises.
Canal’s complaint focuses on the terms of its insurance policy with MZI. The insurer states that its Business Auto Coverage Part and Commercial General Liability Coverage Part both exclude coverage for any obligation for which the insured may be held liable under workers’ compensation law, as well as for bodily injury to an employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment. Canal claims that Perisho’s claims against MZI are excluded from coverage by these provisions, as they relate to injuries sustained by an employee in the course of employment.
The complaint also addresses the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement, or UIIA, between MZI and Norfolk Southern. Under this agreement, MZI agreed to indemnify Norfolk Southern for certain liabilities, but the agreement contains an exception that indemnity does not apply to damages caused by or resulting from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of Norfolk Southern, its agents, employees, vendors, or third-party invitees. Canal asserts that since Perisho’s claims against Norfolk Southern allege negligence by Norfolk Southern, MZI is not obligated to indemnify Norfolk Southern for Perisho’s claim, and Canal is not obligated to defend or indemnify Norfolk Southern.
Canal further points to a policy endorsement, the Truckers – Uniform Intermodal Interchange Endorsement (UIIE-1), which provides that insurance applies to liability assumed by the named insured under Section F.4. of the UIIA, but also incorporates the same exceptions regarding negligence by the facility operator.
The outcome Canal seeks is a judicial declaration that it does not owe and has never owed MZI a duty to defend it against the claims asserted by Perisho under the Canal Policy, and that it does not owe MZI or Norfolk Southern a duty to indemnify them under the policy for the claims asserted by Perisho or for any judgment that may be entered on such claims.
At this stage, the case is at the complaint phase, and Canal’s assertions represent its claims, not established facts. The court will determine whether the policy exclusions and contractual provisions cited by Canal are sufficient to deny coverage and defense for MZI and Norfolk Southern.
For insurance professionals, this case highlights the importance of understanding policy language and indemnity clauses in commercial transportation agreements. The court’s decision is expected to clarify the obligations of insurers and insureds in similar disputes.
