BMC-91 vs BMC-91X: The Insurance Filing Your ACORD 25 Doesn't Show You

The Policy That Paid Pennies

The broker had done everything she thought she was supposed to do. Pulled the MC# on SAFER, confirmed active authority, verified $1M cargo and $1M auto liability on the ACORD 25 she got from the carrier. She even called the agency listed to confirm the policy was in force. Clean call, clean certificate. Load tendered.

Three months later, a driver for MC-1589204 (DOT-4102887) rear-ended a stopped semi on I-65 outside Bowling Green. Injured driver's verdict: $2.9M. The carrier's insurer — a non-admitted, excess and surplus lines company — paid $750,000. The remaining $2.15M came looking for someone else.

Her ACORD 25 had shown $1M in auto liability. What it didn't show — what an ACORD never shows — is which form was actually filed with FMCSA and what the mandatory pay obligation covered. The policy sold to MC-1589204 had a $1M limit on paper. But the endorsement that obligates the insurer to pay third parties regardless of policy exclusions was written at $750K. The excess layer sat under standard policy terms with standard exclusions. The insurer found one and used it.

I've talked to enough defense attorneys to know this isn't an edge case.

What the BMC-91 Actually Is

Most brokers know FMCSA's L&I (Licensing & Insurance) database. They pull a carrier, see "Active" next to insurance, and move on. What they don't always read is which form is filed and what it actually covers.

A carrier operating interstate in property freight must have a Form BMC-91 on file — the Motor Carrier Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance. The insurer files this directly with FMCSA. It's different from an ACORD 25 in a way that matters legally.

When a carrier has a BMC-91 on file, that filing must include something called the MCS-90 endorsement — required under 49 CFR § 387.15. That endorsement binds the insurer to a specific obligation: pay injured third parties up to the required minimum limits even when the policy itself would allow a denial. Driver was impaired? Excluded under the standard policy? Doesn't matter. Under § 387.15, the insurer still has to pay the injured third party first, then go after the carrier to recover. They can't use a policy exclusion as a shield against someone who wasn't a party to the contract.

That's a real protection. But it only runs to the minimum coverage floor.

The Minimum Floor Problem

Here's where the gap opens. The mandatory pay obligation in § 387.15 is pegged to the minimums set out in 49 CFR § 387.9. For most property carriers, that's $750,000. For carriers hauling general hazmat (Zones C and D), it's $1,000,000. For the more hazardous classifications — Zones A and B, or other specified materials — it's $5,000,000.

If a carrier has a BMC-91 on file at $750K, and their ACORD 25 claims $1M or $2M in auto liability, the difference is NOT protected by the § 387.15 mandatory pay requirement. That excess coverage sits in the regular policy with regular terms. Regular terms have exclusions. Insurers know how to use them.

So when you're looking at an ACORD 25 showing $1M auto liability, the question you should be asking is: what does the FMCSA filing actually show for form type and coverage amount? If the BMC-91 on L&I shows $750K and the ACORD shows $1M, you have a layered structure where the top $250K of the claimed limit can be walked away from.

Most brokers don't catch this because they don't compare the two records.

BMC-91X: The Excess Layer

Some carriers file an additional form — the BMC-91X — which is an excess liability filing. Where the BMC-91 covers the required minimum, the BMC-91X evidences coverage above that floor and brings it into the same mandatory-pay framework.

A carrier with both a BMC-91 and a BMC-91X on file, both active, both matching the ACORD — that's a cleaner picture. The higher limit is backed by the same legal obligation that makes the minimum meaningful. A carrier with only a BMC-91 at $750K but claiming $1M on an ACORD 25 has a different structure, and you should know what it is before you tender a $900K load.

I'd guess fewer than one in ten brokers knows the BMC-91X exists. I didn't know it mattered until I started reading the actual filings instead of just confirming "active."

The Non-Admitted Insurer Problem

This takes a minute to explain, but it's important.

Insurance companies operate as either admitted or non-admitted (the latter called E&S, for excess and surplus lines) in each state. Admitted carriers are licensed by the state insurance department, subject to state regulations, and — critically — backed by that state's guaranty fund if the insurer becomes insolvent. Non-admitted E&S carriers operate under different rules, can take on risks admitted carriers won't touch, and are generally not backed by the guaranty fund.

When a carrier's BMC-91 is filed by an E&S insurer, the § 387.15 mandatory pay obligation still exists in theory. But enforcement against an insolvent non-admitted insurer is a different problem than a claim against an admitted carrier with state fund backing. If the insurer goes under, you're lining up with creditors. There's no guaranty fund payment to step in.

The ACORD 25 you received will show the insurer's name. It won't tell you whether that insurer is admitted in the state where an accident could happen. The L&I record shows the filing entity. A five-minute lookup on the NAIC company database tells you admitted status by state.

Almost nobody does this. For a high-value or high-exposure lane, it's worth the five minutes.

Comparing the L&I Filing to the ACORD 25

When I pull a carrier's L&I record, I'm looking at four things and comparing them against the certificate I received:

The insurer's legal entity name — not the trade name or the DBA, the actual entity. ACORD certificates sometimes list a group name or a brand name that doesn't match the filing entity. Worth confirming they're the same company or a subsidiary relationship you can verify.

The form type — BMC-91 only, or BMC-91 plus a BMC-91X. If you're tendering freight where a claim could exceed $750K, knowing whether the excess layer has an FMCSA filing matters.

The coverage amount — does the L&I filing match what's on the ACORD? Mismatches between these two records are a documentation problem at minimum and a coverage gap at worst.

Policy effective and expiration dates — if the L&I shows a policy expiring in 30 days and the carrier hasn't filed a renewal, that's a real issue. Some carriers let their filings lapse and reactivate on a lag; if a claim happens during a gap, you're in contested territory.

Any of these that don't align is worth a call to confirm before you tender.

A Note on What This Doesn't Cover

The BMC-91 / BMC-91X system is about auto liability — coverage for bodily injury and property damage when a truck is involved in an accident. It's separate from cargo insurance (which covers the freight itself) and workers' comp (which covers the driver).

Cargo coverage is filed separately, governed by different minimum requirements, and has its own common gap patterns — FAK exclusions, sublimits on high-value commodities, refrigeration breakdown exclusions for reefer loads. That's a different post. What I'm talking about here is the liability coverage that matters when a carrier's driver hurts someone.

What Montgomery Changes About This

After Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (decided May 14, 2026), brokers can be sued under state law for negligent carrier selection. That means your insurance verification process is now part of the paper trail that gets subpoenaed.

If your carrier file shows you received an ACORD 25, confirmed "active" on SAFER, and moved on — that's what a plaintiff's lawyer will show the jury. It's thin. In a state court after Montgomery, "I got the certificate" is not going to impress anyone.

"I verified the FMCSA endorsement filing matched the certificate, confirmed the form type, noted there was no BMC-91X on file and so the mandatory pay floor was $750K, and made a documented decision about whether that was adequate for this lane" is a sentence you can say under oath.

The difference between those two file records is the difference between a broker who looks like they were paying attention and one who was just doing the minimum.

How I Document This

For any new carrier or a carrier I haven't run in a while, my insurance verification step hits three records, not one:

First, the ACORD 25 itself — saved to the file, date of receipt noted.

Second, the FMCSA L&I pull — screenshot, datestamped. I note the form type (BMC-91, or BMC-91 plus BMC-91X), the coverage amount, and the insurer entity name. If it doesn't match the ACORD, I don't tender until I get an explanation.

Third, if the insurer is one I don't recognize, or if the load is high-value, I look up their AM Best rating and their admitted status in the state where the freight runs. Non-admitted E&S with a B+ rating and a BMC-91 at the floor minimum on a $1.2M load is a combination I'm going to think hard about.

None of that documentation takes longer than ten minutes. And it's the kind of file that makes defense attorneys comfortable rather than nervous.

The carriers I watch closest are the ones whose ACORD shows limits well above $750K but who only have a BMC-91 at the floor on L&I with no BMC-91X. That structure isn't automatically a disqualifier — plenty of good carriers run that way. But I know what it means now, I document what it means, and if something goes wrong I can explain why I made the call I made. That's what a defensible file looks like.

---

— Mason Lavallet

Founder, DOTScreener.com