MCS-90 Endorsements: A Must-Know Route to Recovery for Truck Crash Victims

Imagine you are driving down I-81 when a tractor-trailer negligently crashes into you, causing severe injuries. You later learn that the trucking company’s insurer is denying coverage—claiming that neither the driver nor the vehicle involved in the crash falls within the scope of the policy. If the driver and the trucking company lack sufficient assets to satisfy a judgment, are you out of luck?

Not necessarily. In certain cases, an MCS-90 endorsement can provide a path to recovery, even when traditional insurance coverage appears unavailable. This article explains what an MCS-90 endorsement is, why federal law requires it, and how it can play an important role in a serious truck crash case.

An MCS-90 endorsement is a federally required attachment to certain motor carrier liability policies.[1] In general terms, the endorsement requires the insurer to satisfy a final judgment against the motor carrier up to the federal minimum financial responsibility limits applicable to commercial motor vehicles—currently $750,000 or more, depending on the type of material being transported.[2] The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s website contains an MCS-90 endorsement form. The endorsement is not ordinary insurance coverage, and it is not a magic wand. But in the right case, it can prevent a truck crash victim from being left with an uncollectible judgment.

What makes the MCS-90 endorsement unique is that it may apply even when the underlying policy would not otherwise cover the crash—for example, where the vehicle was not listed on the policy or where the driver was not listed on the policy.

“Congress enacted the MCA, in part, to address abuses that had arisen in the interstate trucking industry which threatened public safety.”[3] Thus, the purpose of the MCS-90 endorsement is to protect the public from gaps in financial responsibility created by motor carriers and truck drivers operating without sufficient collectible insurance. Congress and federal regulators recognized that, without such a backstop, injured members of the public could be left with a judgment against a negligent truck driver or motor carrier but no practical means of recovery.

The endorsement applies to certain final judgments entered against a motor carrier for “public liability” arising from the carrier’s negligence in the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.[4] As defined in the endorsement, “public liability” includes liability for bodily injury, property damage, and environmental restoration.[5] Importantly, the endorsement applies “irrespective of the financial condition, insolvency or bankruptcy of the insured.”[6]

In litigation, the MCS-90 endorsement can be significant because it may keep an insurer financially involved even when the insurer denies ordinary policy coverage. Generally, when coverage is denied and an insurer has no duty to defend and no duty to indemnify under the policy language, the insurer has little reason to participate in the case. But the MCS-90 changes the insurer’s incentives because, even if the insurer has denied coverage under the policy, it may still have money at stake under the MCS-90 endorsement if the plaintiff obtains a qualifying final judgment. That practical exposure often gives the insurer a reason to monitor the case, participate in settlement discussions, or remain involved rather than wait for a judgment to be entered.[7]

But there are limits to the MCS-90 endorsement. It does not guarantee full recovery in every case. The insurer’s obligation is capped at federally mandated minimum financial responsibility limits—generally $750,000 for most motor carriers and up to $5 million for those transporting certain hazardous materials.[8] As a result, in cases involving catastrophic injuries, the amount available under the MCS-90 may represent only a fraction of the plaintiff’s total damages. Therefore, truck crash victims sometimes seek additional coverage above and beyond the MCS-90 endorsement by pursuing uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage or by pursuing claims against other responsible parties.

MCS-90 endorsements apply only to federally regulated motor carriers, typically those engaged in interstate commerce. They do not apply to every trucking operation, so it is important to determine early whether the carrier was federally regulated and was acting in a regulated capacity at the time of the incident.

The endorsement also does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving liability. The plaintiff must still establish negligence and obtain a judgment against the motor carrier before the MCS-90 obligation is triggered.

Truck crashes can cause catastrophic injuries, and traditional insurance coverage is not always available to satisfy a judgment. In those circumstances, an MCS-90 endorsement can provide an important path to recovery—but it does not guarantee full compensation in every case. For this reason, truck crash victims should also investigate other sources of recovery, including uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and claims against other responsible parties.

Because an MCS-90 endorsement is not insurance coverage in the traditional sense, two issues arose in one of our recent federal trucking cases: (1) whether the MCS-90 endorsement can form the basis of a bad faith claim under Virginia law, and (2) whether an uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier has an obligation to pay before or after a liability carrier paying under an MCS-90. Based on our research, there are not any cases applying Virginia law that have answered these questions.[9]

In sum, a coverage denial by a motor carrier’s insurer does not always mean that the insurer is not responsible for a judgment. In serious truck crash cases, the MCS-90 endorsement should be evaluated early, along with all other potential sources of recovery. Navigating these issues requires careful analysis and strategic decision-making. Our experienced truck crash attorneys understand how to identify when an MCS-90 endorsement may apply, and how to leverage it effectively to protect the interests of truck crash victims and their families.

[1] See 49 C.F.R. § 387.15; Form MCS-90 – Endorsement for Motor Carrier Policies of Insurance for Public Liability under Sections 29 and 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin. (Nov. 25, 2025), https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/form-mcs-90-endorsement-motor-carrier-policies-insurance-public-liability-under.
[2] See 49 C.F.R. § 387.9.
[3] Canal Ins. Co. v. Distribution Servs., 320 F.3d 488, 489 (4th Cir. 2003).
[4] See Form MCS-90, Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin. (Nov. 25, 2025), https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2024-08/MCS-90%20Form.pdf.
[5] Id. at 2.
[6] Id.
[7] Insurers paying under an MCS-90 endorsement have the right to seek reimbursement from the at-fault truck driver or motor carrier.
[8] See 49 C.F.R. § 387.9.
[9] But see Rothschild v. Lancer Ins. Co., 71 Pa. D. & C.5th 364, 389 (Pa. C.P. 2018) (holding that an MCS-90 endorsement may form the basis of a bad faith claim under Pennsylvania law).