Casey G. McCurdy, Esquire of MOODK’s Philadelphia and New Jersey offices obtained a dismissal of all claims against his client in a coverage dispute between insurance carriers pending in New Jersey. The underlying matter involved an automobile accident in New York involving a commercial vehicle. The insurance carrier covering the tractor brought suit against the insurer for the trailer and MOODK’s client, the insurer of the company whose driver allegedly was operating the commercial vehicle at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff sought, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that MOODK’s client owed primary coverage due to the MCS-90 endorsement attached to the client’s motor carrier policy. MOODK filed an early dispositive motion arguing that although there is an MCS-90 endorsement attached to the policy, such endorsement is not triggered until a final judgment is rendered against the insured resulting from an accident caused by negligence in the underlying matter. MOODK further argued that the MCS-90 endorsement, standing alone, does not provide any duty to defend an insured. Finally, MOODK argued that the MCS-90 endorsement does not generally apply to disputes between insurers, because it acts as a surety to protect the public and provides coverage only when there is no insurance coverage available to cover the damages up to the required limits. The Court agreed with MOODK’s arguments and dismissed all claims against its client.