Although the commercial auto policy excluded coverage for the named insured, coverage was still possible for the additional insured.  Great West Casualty Co. v. Terminal Trucking Col., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30356 (D. S.C. March 22, 2011).

   Wellman, Inc. sold bales of polyester fiber to Milliken & Company.  Wellman contracted with Terminal Trucking Company to deliver the bales of fabric to Milliken.  In August 2007, Wellman loaded a trailer with bales of fabric and a Terminal driver delivered the loaded trailer to Milliken.  Before leaving, the driver unhitched the trailer from his truck and left the trailer on Milliken's property, as instructed by a Milliken employee. 

   The next morning, Sutton, a Milliken employee, approached the trailer to unload the fabric.  A bale inside the trailer fell through the door, hit Sutton, and caused serious injury.

   Sutton sued Terminal and Wellman.  Terminal had a commercial general liability policy and a commercial auto insurance policy with Great West Casualty Company.  Wellman was an additional insured on both policies.  Great West sued for a declaratory judgment, contending there was no coverage for either Terminal or Wellman.

   On motions for summary judgment, the court found there was no coverage under the CGL policy.  An exclusion for aircraft, auto or watercraft provided there was no insurance for bodily injury arising out of the loading or unloading of a trailer.  This exclusion applied not only to the named insured, Terminal, but also to the additional insured, Wellman.  An endorsement stated that coverage provided to the additional insured was subject to all exclusions in the policy.

   Nor was Terminal covered under the commercial auto policy.  The Completed Operations exclusion provided when all work was completed at a site, there was no coverage.  The additional insured endorsement for the auto policy provided coverage for liability based on "the conduct of an 'insured' . . . and only to the extent of that liability."  Unlike the CGL policy, however, the additional insured endorsement did not incorporate all of the exclusions.  Therefore, the Completed Operations exclusion did not apply to Wellman.

   Nevertheless, coverage was available only if Wellman was ultimately found liable for damages resulting from Terminal's conduct.  Sutton alleged the bales of fiber were improperly loaded,the bales shifted during transit,Terminal failed to train its driver to understand the cargo may shift during transit, and Wellman and Terminal had no procedure by which to make sure the load was safe for unloading.  The determination as to whether Wellman's liability was based on Terminal's conduct had to be determined in the underlying litigation.