An insurer says the wrong carrier has been footing the bill.
Seneca Insurance Company has asked a federal court to rule on whether it still has to defend a Philadelphia labor union local and one of its workers in a bodily injury lawsuit – arguing that another insurer should have been handling the case from day one.
The complaint, filed September 16 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, centers on an April 2023 accident in which a jogger was struck by a Chevy Blazer on MLK Drive in Philadelphia. The driver, according to the filing, was performing political canvassing work at the time on behalf of Worker Vote, the political action arm of Unite Here International Union.
The coverage fight turns on a deceptively simple question: who hired the rental vehicle?
Seneca issued a commercial auto policy to Unite Here Local 274, the Philadelphia-based chapter, covering only hired autos and non-owned autos – meaning vehicles the local itself rented or borrowed, or vehicles it did not own but that were being used for its business. According to the complaint, discovery in the underlying personal injury case showed that the Blazer was rented through a master rental agreement between Avis and Unite Here International Union – not the local chapter. The international union's corporate discount number was used, the international union paid for the vehicle and its fuel, and the driver testified she did not pay for either, the filing states.
Because the local did not rent, hire, or borrow the vehicle, Seneca argues it does not qualify as a covered auto under either category in the Seneca policy. And if there is no covered auto, Seneca says, neither the local nor the driver qualifies as an insured entitled to a defense.
Seneca's complaint points to a Trumbull Insurance Company commercial auto policy issued to Unite Here International Union. That policy, the filing alleges, uses the broadest possible covered-auto category – "Any Auto" – meaning every vehicle involved in the case automatically qualifies as covered.
Under that language, Seneca argues, the driver qualifies as an insured because she was using a vehicle hired by the international union with its permission. The local, meanwhile, qualifies under the policy's provision covering anyone alleged to be responsible for the conduct of an existing insured – since the underlying lawsuit claims the local is liable for the driver's actions.
The complaint also names Federal Insurance Company as the excess carrier sitting above the Trumbull policy. Seneca asks the court to declare that if Trumbull's limits are exhausted, Federal must step in to defend and potentially cover any damages awarded against the local and the driver.
Beyond shedding its own defense obligation, Seneca is chasing reimbursement. The complaint alleges Trumbull had a duty to defend from the moment the original personal injury lawsuit was filed in September 2024, and that Trumbull denied that duty. Seneca asks the court to order Trumbull to reimburse all – or a proportional share – of the defense costs Seneca has spent to date.
The underlying personal injury case, filed by the jogger in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, remains ongoing.
For commercial auto underwriters and claims teams, the case is a practical reminder that the entity on the rental agreement – not necessarily the entity on the policy declarations page – can determine which carrier owns the defense.
The allegations in Seneca's complaint have not been proven, and no court has made any findings on the merits.
