Insurance Carrier Not On the Hook for $3 Million Jury Award to Logging Trucker

What Happened?

In 2018 Keave Bayes suffered a blow to the head while pulp wood was loaded onto his truck trailer at a logging deck operated by Rutland Logging. The injury happened as Kenneth Andrews, an employee of the Rutland sole proprietorship, used log loading machinery to lift wood product into Bayes’ trailer.

Andrews set the machine up on the passenger side of Mr. Bayes’ truck trailer. During the loading process, a large log fell onto the driver’s side and struck Bayes in the head.

Trucker Sues Logging Sole Proprietor and Employee

John Paul Godwin of Hardison & Cochran, PLLC and Sanford Thompson of Sanford Thompson PLLC filed a lawsuit on behalf of Bayes against Craig Rutland and Kenneth D. Andrews in Johnston County Superior Court. The filing claimed that Mr. Bayes suffered traumatic brain injury, permanent short-term memory deficits, and motor weakness.

Nautilus Insurance, Rutland Logging’s general commercial insurance carrier, filed a declaratory judgment prior to the trial, claiming the injury fell under the policy’s exclusions. U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles agreed with Nautilus, determining that the L205 endorsement in the policy excluded worker injuries and unambiguously barred coverage. The judge also stated that Bayes’ injury clearly occurred during the process of working.

At the trial, the plaintiff overcame claims of contributory negligence with evidence of Bayes’ prior habits at logging decks over time.

The jury heard expert testimony from a neurosurgeon and rehab specialist before returning a $3 million verdict in favor of the plaintiff in April 2022.

The Appellate Ruling

On appeal, in an unpublished opinion, the Fourth District panel affirmed the lower court’s finding that the broad worker injury insurance policy exclusion applied in the case.

Following a review of the insurance contract and the facts around Mr. Bayes’ injury, the panel concurred with the lower court judge that the L205 endorsement is unambiguous and applies to bar coverage in this case. The panel cited Digh v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 654 S.E.2d 37, 39 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) which emphasized that in the absence of ambiguity, courts should construe insurance policies “by the plain, ordinary and accepted meaning of the language used.”