Massachusetts Judge Rules Van Ownership Never Transferred Without Title
A Massachusetts federal judge has ruled that a towing company that possessed and used a van for approximately four years never became its legal owner because the seller failed to deliver the vehicle’s certificate of title.
But that ruling did not give the towing company and its driver access to the vehicle owner’s full commercial auto liability coverage.
In an August 25 decision, U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick ruled that Export Enterprises of Massachusetts, Inc. remained the legal owner of a 2012 Ford van involved in a 2022 pedestrian accident. The court nevertheless found that an auto-business exclusion prevented D&G Towing and Auto Repair Services, Inc. and driver Trevor Libert from qualifying as insureds under ACE American Insurance Company’s Covered Autos Liability Coverage Part.
The court held that D&G and Libert were instead entitled to coverage under ACE’s Massachusetts Compulsory Bodily Injury to Others Coverage Form. It also declared that D&G’s Commerce Insurance Company commercial auto coverage was excess to the compulsory coverage owed by ACE.
Four Years of Possession Without a Title Transfer
The coverage dispute arose from an unusual vehicle transaction between Export and D&G.
D&G performed towing work for Export in 2017, leaving Export owing D&G money. The companies subsequently agreed that Export would transfer the 2012 Ford van to D&G in satisfaction of the debt.
D&G took possession of the van in 2018. Export, however, never executed or delivered the certificate of title despite D&G’s repeated requests.
Instead, Export provided D&G with a Massachusetts repair plate and continued renewing the plate and supplying registration stickers.
In 2022, Export told D&G that a certificate of title would be provided. D&G then instructed Libert, who was working for D&G, to drive the van to have D&G advertising applied to its exterior.
On July 10, 2022, Libert was driving the van in Boston when he was involved in an accident with pedestrian Patricia Fisher.
Fisher later sought compensation from D&G and Libert and filed suit against them and Export on July 8, 2025.
Court Finds Export Still Owned the Van
The ownership question became central to determining which insurance coverage applied.
ACE argued that the 2018 transaction transferred ownership because D&G took possession of the van in exchange for cancellation of Export’s debt and thereafter exercised control over the vehicle.
D&G argued that ownership remained with Export because the certificate of title was never delivered.
Judge Kobick agreed with D&G on the ownership issue.
Applying Massachusetts UCC provisions governing the passage of title and Chapter 90D’s motor vehicle title requirements, the court concluded that automobile ownership under the circumstances depended on delivery of the title documents.
Because Export never delivered the certificate of title, the court ruled that Export remained the van’s legal owner when the accident occurred. The van therefore qualified as a covered auto under ACE’s Business Auto Policy.
The court also found that Libert was operating the van with Export’s permission. Export’s continued provision of the repair plate and annual registration stickers supported the conclusion that Export had consented to D&G’s use of the vehicle.
Auto-Business Exclusion Bars Broader ACE Coverage
Ownership and permission, however, did not resolve whether D&G and Libert qualified as insureds under ACE’s Covered Autos Liability Coverage Part.
That coverage excluded a person using a covered auto while working in a business of selling, servicing, repairing, parking or storing automobiles, unless that business belonged to the named insured.
D&G did not dispute that it offered roadside assistance, including changing flat tires, jump-starting batteries and supplying gasoline, or that those activities constituted servicing automobiles.
D&G instead argued that the exclusion should not apply because Libert was driving the van to have advertising installed when the accident occurred rather than servicing an automobile.
Judge Kobick rejected that interpretation.
The court concluded that the exclusion focuses on the nature of the business for which the driver was working, rather than solely on the particular task the driver was performing when the accident occurred.
Because Libert was operating the van while working for D&G, and D&G offered automobile servicing through its roadside-assistance operations, the court held that D&G and Libert were not insureds under ACE’s Covered Autos Liability Coverage Part.
Compulsory Coverage Still Applies
The result was different under ACE’s Massachusetts Compulsory Bodily Injury to Others Coverage Form.
Under that coverage, an insured included anyone using a covered auto with the named insured’s consent. The auto-business exclusion contained in the broader Covered Autos Liability Coverage Part did not apply to the compulsory coverage.
Because Export owned the van and had consented to its use by D&G and Libert, the court declared that D&G and Libert were entitled to ACE’s compulsory bodily injury coverage.
The ACE compulsory coverage carried limits of $20,000 for bodily injury to one person and $40,000 for bodily injury arising from one accident.
Commerce Coverage Is Excess
D&G also had a Business Auto Policy issued by Commerce Insurance Company.
Under the Commerce policy, coverage was primary for automobiles owned by D&G but excess over other collectible insurance for automobiles D&G did not own.
The court declared that Commerce’s coverage was excess to the coverage owed under ACE’s Compulsory Bodily Injury to Others Coverage Form.
Accordingly, although the court found that Export continued to own the van, D&G and Libert did not receive the broader ACE Covered Autos Liability coverage they sought. Their ACE coverage was limited to the compulsory bodily injury coverage, with Commerce occupying the excess position under the policies before the court.
Owen Gallagher
Insurance Coverage Legal Expert/Co-Founder & Publisher of Agency Checklists
Interested in connecting with me? Call me directly at 617-598-3801.
