A trucking insured alleges a $303,000 collateral increase triggered a broader dispute over premium audits, claims expenses, and large-deductible insurance practices.
On July 13, 2026, TBM Carriers, Inc. and TBM Carriers de Mexico S.A. de C.V. filed suit against Obsidian Insurance Company in federal court in Texas. According to the filing, the companies seek declaratory relief, damages, and an injunction, alleging that Obsidian improperly increased collateral requirements, failed to refund overpaid premiums, and did not properly account for certain claims-related expenses.
The dispute centers on a large-deductible trucking liability program covering a fleet of approximately 200 trucks operating between Mexico and the US. According to the complaint, the insurance arrangement required the insureds to post a $350,000 letter of credit as collateral for deductible obligations and certain claim expenses.
The plaintiffs allege that, in June 2026, after the second policy year had ended, Obsidian demanded that the collateral be increased by an additional $303,000, bringing the total to $653,000. The trucking companies contend there was no contractual basis for the increase and point to allegations that the demand came after Obsidian announced it was "exiting" the trucking insurance business. They are seeking an order preventing the insurer from drawing on the existing letter of credit or enforcing the requested increase while the case proceeds.
For insurance professionals, the case highlights issues involving premium audits and exposure-based pricing.
The plaintiffs contend that premiums under the trucking liability and commercial general liability policies were calculated using estimated fleet mileage and were subject to later audit. They allege that actual mileage was significantly lower than projected, resulting in premium overpayments. According to the filing, the amount allegedly owed ranges from at least $339,212 to approximately $1.47 million, depending on how various policy provisions are interpreted. The filing also states that Obsidian issued a premium credit of $171,992, which the plaintiffs allege was applied against a prior premium rather than refunded.
The case also focuses on policy language governing premium audits. The plaintiffs point to a provision they say requires a final audit within 180 days after a coverage period expires to calculate earned premium based on actual exposures and to return any unearned premium owed. They allege that obligation was not fulfilled.
Another issue raised in the lawsuit involves allocated loss adjustment expenses, or ALAE. According to the complaint, the policies define ALAE as claim-specific costs that can include attorney fees, expert expenses, court costs, investigative services, witness fees, and other expenditures tied to handling a particular claim. The plaintiffs allege they incurred and paid substantial ALAE under the large-deductible program but were not properly credited for those amounts. They estimate the disputed credits at approximately $600,000.
In addition to contract-based claims, the lawsuit alleges breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Texas Insurance Code, and unjust enrichment.
While the case remains in its early stages, it places attention on several issues frequently encountered in commercial insurance programs, including collateral management, premium audit obligations, deductible-program accounting, and the treatment of loss adjustment expenses. Those matters are relevant to insurers, claims administrators, underwriters, brokers, and commercial insurance executives.
The allegations have not been tested in court, and no court has ruled on the claims.
