RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the excess insurance policies were unambiguous and did not require the excess insurer to act as primary carrier when the primary carrier became insolvent.
Plaintiff purchased excess liability coverage from defendant, with a required underlying primary coverage from another insurer. The primary insurer be…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excess Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Radiator Specialty Company appeals the entry of summary judgment in favor of First State Insurance Company. We affirm.
Radiator Specialty purchased excess products liability coverage from First State under two umbrella policies. The first policy covered the period from May 1, 1979 to May 1, 1980 and the second from May 1, 1980 until it was cancelled by Radiator Specialty on November 13, 1980. As required by the policies, Radiator Specialty maintained $500,000.00 underlying coverage with Ambassador Insurance Company. Ambassador was subsequently declared insolvent.
During the period the umbrella coverage was in effect, seven products liability claims arose against Radiator Specialty. Radiator Specialty paid a total of $286,-784.06 on five of these claims due to the insolvency of Ambassador. One of the claims is still pending and another was settled pending this appeal.
Radiator Specialty instituted this suit seeking a declaration that the excess policies required First State to assume the role of primary carrier due to the insolvency of Ambassador. It asserted that provisions in the policies created an ambiguity as to who would be responsible for paying claims in the event the primary carrier became insolvent. Since the policies did not address the consequences of the insolvency of the primary carrier, it urged the conclusion that the responsibility should fall to the excess carrier. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court entered judgment for First State.
The district court’s well-reasoned opinion thoroughly addressed these issues. Our review of the record convinces us that the policies are unambiguous and that summary judgment was properly granted. American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. London & Edinburgh Insurance Co., 354 F. 2d 214, 217 (4th Cir.1965). We therefore affirm on the opinion of the district court. Radiator Specialty Co. v. First State Insurance Co., 651 F.Supp. 439 (W.D.N.C.1987).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shapiro v. Associated Int'l Ins. Co., 899 F.2d 1116 (11th Cir. 1990)
-
Transco Exploration Co. v. Pac. Emp'rs Ins. Co., 869 F.2d 862 (5th Cir. 1989)
-
United States Fire Ins. Co., Inc. v. Charter Fin. Grp., Inc., 851 F.2d 957 (7th Cir. 1988)
Authorities Cited
- Am. Fid. & Cas. Co., Inc. v. The London & Edinburgh Ins. Co., 354 F.2d 214 (4th Cir. 1965)