Case Explained: THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff – v. LEVI OWENS, Personal Representative for the Estate of Christopher McLean Defendant – Appellant and WILMINGTON SHIPPING COMPANY; WAYNE HUNT

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-10 The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Cincinnati Insurance Company, holding that the insurer owed no duty to defend or indemnify Wayne Hunt under its insurance policies issued to Wilmington Shipping Company. The court held that the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction because the South Carolina state court default judgment against Hunt was final and conclusive under state law despite pending motions to vacate, establishing a justiciable case or controversy regarding the duty to indemnify. In evaluating the request for a stay of federal proceedings pending state court resolution, the court applied the *Nautilus* factors and found no abuse of discretion, determining that South Carolina had a weak interest in applying North Carolina insurance law, the state court could not resolve the coverage issue efficiently as Cincinnati was not a party, and there was minimal risk of entanglement. On the merits of the proposed amendment to assert an MCS-90 endorsement counterclaim, the court interpreted 49 U.S.C. § 13906 and 49 C.F.R. § 387.5 to define “insured” as the named motor carrier only, ruling that enforcement against Hunt would be futile since he was not the named insured. The court further rejected the argument that summary judgment was premature, noting Owens had access to discovery on the issue and failed to develop arguments justifying deferral. Consequently, Cincinnati’s declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Hunt stands, and the federal action concludes in favor of the insurer. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.