Trisura Specialty Insurance Company is asking a Texas federal court to rule it owes no coverage for a trucking accident claim, citing strict policy terms.
On August 6, 2025, Trisura filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, seeking a declaratory judgment against Gala International Group, LLC. The insurer wants the court to declare that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Gala International Group, LLC in a lawsuit brought by Timothy Mendoza, who says he was “severely injured in a motor vehicle collision” involving a truck tied to the company.
Mendoza’s lawsuit, pending in the 120th District Court of El Paso County, Texas, alleges that Nolberto Pacheco Ramirez caused the accident while working for Gala International Group and United Freight Transport, LLC. Mendoza is seeking actual and exemplary damages, citing negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Texas Transportation Code.
Trisura’s complaint centers on the terms of its commercial automobile liability policy, number TTT-26-2-244305, issued to Gala International Group, LLC for the period of February 8, 2024 to February 8, 2025, with a $1 million combined single limit. The insurer’s main argument is that its policy only covers scheduled vehicles driven by drivers listed in the policy. Trisura says Ramirez was not a listed driver, and therefore, the policy does not provide coverage for this accident.
The complaint also notes a potential issue with the named insured. The policy names “Gala International Group, LLC,” but the underlying lawsuit names “Gala International Group.” Trisura points out that whether these entities are the same is unknown, and the lawsuit does not expressly name the first named insured.
Trisura highlights another policy clause: the punitive and exemplary damages exclusion. The policy states, “This policy does not cover fines, penalties, damages multiplied by operation of law, or punitive or exemplary damages.” Trisura argues that any such damages sought by Mendoza are not covered.
The insurer also claims that it has not received proper notice or cooperation from Gala International Group, LLC regarding the claim. According to the complaint, no representative of the insured has provided notice or demanded a defense or indemnity, and the insured has not provided requested information about the accident.
The MCS-90 Endorsement, a federally required provision for certain motor carriers, is also addressed. Trisura states that the endorsement only applies when required by federal law and that there is no evidence the accident involved interstate transportation or hazardous materials. The complaint also notes that the MCS-90 Endorsement does not create a duty to defend and is only triggered by a final judgment under federal regulations, which does not exist in this case.
Trisura is asking the court to declare that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Gala International Group, LLC in the Mendoza lawsuit. The insurer is also seeking attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief.
It’s important to note that this is an original petition, and the court has not yet ruled on Trisura’s claims. The statements in the complaint reflect the insurer’s position, not established facts. For insurance professionals, this case is a clear example of how policy wording, listed drivers, and compliance with notice requirements can shape the outcome when a major claim is at stake.
