Court Opinion

ID: 9686788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:06:35.814044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:22.046534
License: Public Domain

HOLTAN, Judge
(concurring specially).
We may assume that carriers and insurers are aware of common carrier regulatory laws and will comply or attempt to comply with those laws.
Public policy and the statutory scheme, mandating a written lease before a carrier may use nonowned vehicles, create a presumption that the required lease is formed if any indicium of such a relationship is proven. Such indicium is evidence of an attempt to comply with the statute when viewed objectively. The presumption completes the lease. This lease mandate is to assure that all carrier-used vehicles are properly insured. This presumption ensures the public policy by *874protecting the public from uninsured carrier vehicles.
When a carrier uses a nonowned truck and the insurance policy, as is the case here, insures any nonowned truck operating “under the authority of the carrier,” public policy and the statutory scheme require that the injured third party share the lighter burden of proving indicia of a lease relationship and the earrier/insurer share the heavier burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no lease relationship existed.
This presumption would encourage insurers and carriers to monitor the carrier operation to make clear the carrier’s relation to such nonowned vehicles, and to clearly define and document that relationship. Appellants have not done so.