Two insurers are pointing at each other over an Alabama crash - and they want a judge to decide who pays. 

Indian Harbor Insurance Company filed a lawsuit in federal court on August 10, 2026, asking for a declaration that it doesn't have to cover a railroad-crossing collision - and that State Farm does. 

The dispute grows out of a wreck involving a hi-rail truck, a road vehicle fitted with extra wheels so it can run on railroad tracks. According to the complaint, an employee of Southern Design and Materials, Inc. was driving one on or about August 7, 2023, traveling behind another hi-rail truck. The filing alleges the lead driver stopped on a railroad crossing, the following driver couldn't stop in time, and the two collided, allegedly injuring the lead driver, who later sued the company and the driver in state court in Walker County, Alabama. 

Now both of the company's insurers say the claim belongs to the other. Indian Harbor issued Southern Design and Materials a commercial general liability policy with a $1 million each-occurrence limit and a $2 million general aggregate limit. State Farm issued the company an auto policy with $1 million in limits on the truck itself, listed on the declarations page as "YOUR CAR." 

Indian Harbor leans on an auto exclusion in its own policy. The complaint quotes it: the coverage "does not apply to" bodily injury "arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft, 'auto' or watercraft owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured." Because the truck was built for public roads and carried Alabama-mandated liability insurance, Indian Harbor alleges it counts as an "auto," so the exclusion applies and bars coverage. 

State Farm reads things differently. According to the complaint, State Farm informed Southern Design and Materials that the accident wasn't covered under its policy. The filing says State Farm's position, on information and belief, is that the loss arose from equipment mounted on the truck - specifically the wheels that let it ride the rails - which State Farm's Commercial Vehicle Endorsement excludes. That endorsement, as quoted in the complaint, states there is "NO COVERAGE FOR AN INSURED FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, OR USE OF ANY EQUIPMENT THAT IS TOWED BY, MOUNTED ON, OR CARRIED ON ANY VEHICLE." 

Indian Harbor pushes back on that reading. The complaint alleges the accident didn't arise from any equipment separate from the truck but from the truck itself - and, in the alternative, that the rail wheels were designed to let the truck be used for road maintenance, which the filing says would fall inside an exception to the exclusion. 

There's a payment order at stake too. Indian Harbor alleges that if both policies apply, State Farm's auto coverage is primary and its own coverage is excess - meaning it wouldn't owe anything until State Farm's limits are used up. Its own policy, the complaint says, is "excess over" other insurance where the loss arises from the use of an auto. 

For now, both carriers are defending under a reservation of rights. According to the complaint, Indian Harbor agreed to defend the company and the driver subject to its reservation, and State Farm has retained independent defense counsel for them despite reserving its own rights. 

The allegations in the complaint have not been tested in court. No court has ruled on which policy applies, and the defendants have not yet filed a response. Indian Harbor is asking the court for declarations sorting out coverage and the duty to defend.