We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
A California federal court recently issued a summary
judgment ruling after interpreting two "other insurance"
clauses in California State Automobile Inter-Insurance Bureau
v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 57996 (N.D. Cal, April 25, 2012). One insurer argued
that the "other insurance" clauses conflicted with each
other, but the Court disagreed and found no conflict where one
other insurance clause specifically provided for excess coverage in
certain circumstances.
The policyholder had a homeowner's insurance policy with
California State Automobile Inter-Insurance Bureau
("AAA") and a watercraft policy with Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company ("Progressive"). Both issued
liability limits of $500,000.
In a paddleboat accident involving a claim against their mutual
insured, both carriers agreed to defend and indemnify under various
reservation of rights. Upon settlement, AAA contributed
$500,000 to the settlement and Progressive offered $300,000, for a
total of $800,000. AAA contended that both carriers were
co-primary insurers and should have evenly split the $800,000
settlement payment. However, Progressive contended that its
policy was not even triggered until AAA first paid its policy limit
of $500,000 as the primary insurer.
To determine whether Progressive was the excess insurer, the
Court looked to the "other insurance" clauses of both
policies. AAA's other insurance clause provided that:
This insurance is excess over any other valid and collectible
insurance except insurance written specifically to cover as excess
over the limits of liability that apply in this policy.
Progressive's other insurance clause stated:
If there is other applicable liability insurance or bond, we
will pay only our share of the damages. Our share is the
proportion that our Limit of Liability bears to the total
applicable limits. However, any insurance we provide for the
ownership, maintenance or use of a watercraft, other than a covered
watercraft, shall be excess over any other collectible insurance,
self-insurance, or bond.
AAA relied on Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.
Maryland Casualty Company, 65 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1305 (1998)
that where two other insurance clauses directly conflict with each
other, the insurers would share expenses on a pro rata
basis.
The Court sided with Progressive and found that there was no
actual conflict between these two other insurance clauses.
According to the Court, the Progressive policy provided pro rata
coverage with any other primary policy, but carved out a specific
exception when liability arose out of the use of a watercraft,
other than a covered watercraft. In such cases of liability
involving watercrafts, the policy would act as excess coverage to
any other collectibile insurance. Since the Court found the
paddleboat to be a watercraft and that AAA had not alleged that the
paddleboat was a "covered" watercraft,
Progressive's policy was excess to AAA's policy.
AAA also argued that Progressive assumed it was a co-primary
insurer with AAA for the duration of the underlying litigation,
that Progressive did not specifically ever point out that it was an
excess insurer during the underlying ligation, and that Progressive
never reserved its rights regarding its relationship with
AAA. However, the Court granted summary judgment anyway in
favor of Progressive as Progressive issued a reservation of rights
to the insured and there was no authority cited for the proposition
that an insurer must reserve its rights with another
insurer.
This article is for general information and does not include
full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be
construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any
specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of
any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or
suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other
matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and
subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors
or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide
professional services and should not be construed as a statement as
to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction
in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.
Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700
attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally,
offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges
presented by today's evolving global markets. Duane Morris LLP,
a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices
in the United States and internationally, offers innovative
solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by
today's evolving global markets. The
Duane Morris Institute provides training workshops for HR
professionals, in-house counsel, benefits administrators and senior
managers.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has gone from a distant deadline to an imminent reality, with the controversial "play or pay" provisions scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2014.
A commentary on a recent decision in the case of Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc., v. L. H. Bolduc Co., interpreting a subcontractor's agreement to indemnify a contractor, the subcontractor's contractual obligation to procure insurance to cover that indemnity agreement and the impact of the Minnesota anti-indemnification statute on such contract provisions.
Less than two weeks apart, two appellate courts issued opinions analyzing whether faulty work claims are covered under commercial general liability policies, each reaching a different result.
Like many companies who made products containing asbestos, Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation has over the past several decades defended thousands of asbestos bodily injury claims brought by construction workers who allege they were exposed and suffered bodily injury resulting from exposure to Kaiser Cement’s asbestos containing products.
Many jurisdictions have announced that they plan to more actively pursue natural resource damages from potentially responsible parties deemed liable under CERCLA or Superfund.
As reported in our November 2012 Client Alert entitled Latest Regulatory Developments Concerning Unclaimed Life Insurance Benefits, a few states have passed new laws governing claims investigation practices to address the issue of unclaimed life insurance benefits.
A New York appellate court recently upheld a supreme court ruling that an insurer had a duty to defend a manufacturer’s faulty workmanship where it resulted in third party property damage. I.J. White Corp. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 2500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t Apr. 16, 2013).
In Farkas v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 12-1481, 2013 WL 1459248 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment order and held that a Directors & Officers (D&O) liability insurer had no duty to defend the chairman of the policyholder after he was convicted of criminal fraud.
