"Other Insurance" Clauses

171 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Gilkey v. Andrew Weir Ins. Co., Ltd.
  291 F.2d 132· 9th Cir.· 1961-03-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Lloyd's, having covered the liability and incorporated Colonial's 'other insurance' clause, should not be held wholly non-liable.
• Sw. Indem. Co. & Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Sur. Corp.
  277 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1960-04-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Service Mutual's policy covered the accident because the insured contractor exercised sufficient control over the highway, and National, having paid the settlement and defense costs, was subrogated to the insured's rights against Service Mutual.
• Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  214 F.2d 523· 4th Cir.· 1954-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a towed vehicle, even without its own power, is considered 'in use' under an automobile insurance policy.
• Md. Cas. Co. v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis.
  208 F.2d 731· 2d Cir.· 1953-11-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff insurer could not recover from the defendant insurer due to circuity of action, as any payment would ultimately lead back to the plaintiff.
• United Pac. Ins. Co. v. Ohio Cas. INS. Co.
  172 F.2d 836· 9th Cir.· 1949-02-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Ohio policy, due to specific endorsements and California insurance law interpretation, did not insure Gilbert personally, thus United's policy was primarily liable for the accident. The trial court's judgment was modified to reflect this.
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Vigilant Ins. Co.
  919 F.2d 235· 4th Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 11×
  An insurer that breaches its duty to defend its insured is estopped from later arguing that the underlying events occurred outside its policy period and must contribute to settlements and defense costs.
• The Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
  558 So. 2d 1048· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-02-23 ·cited 11×
  Phoenix Insurance appeals a dismissal of its equitable subrogation claim against Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. Phoenix paid a $100,000 settlement in a personal injury case involving a tiger attack, claiming it was the excess insurer while FFB was primary. The cour
• Sentry Ins. Co. v. AETNA Ins. Co.
  450 So. 2d 1233· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-06-01 ·cited 11×
  Sentry Insurance and Aetna Insurance sought declarations of priority and indemnification after both contributed to settling a personal injury claim arising from an accident involving a vehicle insured by Aetna and driven by an employee of Sentry's insured. The trial court applied
• Winstead v. Ind. Ins. Co.
  855 F.2d 430· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 10×
  ERISA does not preempt a state-law-mandated coordination of benefits provision in a non-ERISA insurance policy, and when conflicting 'other insurance' clauses exist between an ERISA plan and a non-ERISA policy, liability should be apportioned pro rata under federal common law.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
  518 F.2d 292· 10th Cir.· 1975-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Garton was not an indispensable party and that the "other insurance" clauses, after eliminating mutually repugnant escape clauses, established State Farm as an excess carrier and Mid-Continent as a primary carrier.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clendening
  289 So. 2d 704· Fla.· 1974-01-23 ·cited 10×
  Allstate Insurance Company sought review of a decision affirming judgment requiring it to pay uninsured motorist coverage to Tennessee residents. The Florida Supreme Court found no conflict with prior case law requiring reversal and discharged the certiorari petition, noting that
• United States for the Use & Benefit of Contractors Equip. Co. & Contractors Equip. Co. v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co.
  457 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while Trinity's insurance policy did not cover the loss due to its 'other insurance' clause, the trial court erred by conditioning the submission of negligence claims on a prior finding regarding a structural defect.
• Great W. Cas. Co. v. Truck Ins. Exch.
  358 F.2d 883· 10th Cir.· 1966-03-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting parol evidence to determine the intended coverage of the insurance policy, and that the policy did not cover the leased truck.
• The Travelers Indem. Co. of Hartford v. Wells
  316 F.2d 770· 4th Cir.· 1963-04-22 ·cited 10×
  An insurer is not liable under its uninsured motorist endorsement when its policy limit does not exceed the limit of another available similar insurance policy, due to the 'Other Insurance' clause.
• W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  295 F.2d 513· 10th Cir.· 1961-10-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insurer of the loaned vehicle was primarily liable for damages and obligated to defend the driver, as the use of the vehicle was with the owner's permission, even if the driver deviated from the stated purpose.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Peerless Ins. Co.
  287 F.2d 742· 9th Cir.· 1961-02-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insurer's denial of liability on grounds other than notice defects waived those defects, and that conflicting 'excess' and 'pro rata' 'other insurance' clauses should be disregarded, leading to prorated liability based on policy limits.
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Mkt. Ins. Co.
  296 So. 2d 555· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-04-30 ·cited 9×
  The appellate court held that the insurer of the rental car company, not the renter's personal auto insurer, was primarily liable for the initial $25,000 of coverage and defense costs, and that the renter's personal auto insurer's 'excess' clause did not apply when the primary po
• Powell v. The Home Indem. Co.
  343 F.2d 856· 8th Cir.· 1965-04-19 ·cited 9×
  The court held that The Home Indemnity Company is the primary insurer, but disagreed that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is also a primary insurer.
• Canadian Indem. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  213 F.2d 658· 9th Cir.· 1954-06-15 ·cited 9×
  An insurer subrogated to an employer's rights can recover from the negligent employee's insurer, even if the employer's insurer has an 'other insurance' clause.
• Sifers v. Gen. Marine Catering Co.
  892 F.2d 386· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Protection and Indemnity (P&I) insurance is a form of 'ocean marine insurance' exempt from LIGA coverage, and that 'other insurance' clauses in conflicting policies are mutually repugnant and should be disregarded. However, Jones Act and general maritime claim
• Uyless McDANIELS v. Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co.
  602 F.2d 78· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the unloading company was a 'borrower' under the policy and that the insurer was liable for the settlement amount. It also held that both insurers should contribute equally to the settlement.
• Stephens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  508 F.2d 1363· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-05 ·cited 8×
  An insurer's denial of liability waives its right to enforce a policy clause requiring written consent before the insured settles with a third party. Additionally, an exclusion preventing recovery for injuries sustained while occupying an owned but uninsured vehicle is invalid if
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Am. Cas. Co.
  433 F.2d 1007· 8th Cir.· 1970-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment, arguing that the majority's interpretation of insurance policies unfairly relieves one insurer of its contractual obligations.
• Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Robey
  399 F.2d 330· 8th Cir.· 1968-08-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that 'other insurance available' means insurance proceeds actually available to the insured, and that an 'excess-escape' clause in an uninsured motorist policy is likely invalid under Arkansas law as it diminishes statutory minimum protection. The court also held t
• Am. Fire & Cas. Co. of Orlando v. Marathon Aviation Marathon, Inc.
  196 So. 2d 782· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-03-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a third party's insurance policy on an aircraft does not constitute 'specifically insured under a separate policy' for the purpose of an exclusion clause in the insured's own policy, if that third-party policy does not cover the insured's specific risks or int
• Globe Indem. Co. v. Cap. Ins. & Sur. Co., Inc.
  352 F.2d 236· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying Globe's motion to amend the pretrial order, requiring a new opportunity to present evidence.
• Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. OF Charleston v. Indem. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  318 F.2d 714· 4th Cir.· 1963-06-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Pepsi was an insured under Elk's auto policy with Indemnity, and the employee exclusion did not apply because the deceased driver was not Pepsi's employee, making Indemnity primarily responsible for defense.
• Carter v. Arlie J. Vangilder
  803 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that an ICC endorsement does not override an insurance policy's excess coverage clause, and the specific facts of this case do not alter the plain language of the policies regarding primary and excess coverage.
• Twin City Fire Ins. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
  386 F. Supp. 2d 1272· S.D. Fla.· 2005-09-12 ·cited 6×
  The vendor's endorsement in Fireman's Fund policy covers claims arising out of Trendlines' products, obligating Fireman's Fund to contribute to the J.C. Penney settlement. Fireman's Fund must reimburse Twin City $1,295,000.
• Galen Health Care, Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading
  913 F. Supp. 1525· M.D. Fla.· 1996-01-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that ACCR's policy was primary, not excess, and that Plaintiffs, as the excess insurer, were entitled to reimbursement from ACCR under equitable subrogation for the settlement of the malpractice claim.
• The Home Ins. Co. v. Certain Underwriters AT Lloyd's London
  729 F.2d 1132· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 6×
  When multiple insurers' policies contain excess clauses covering the same risk, they must share the settlement costs on a pro rata basis, and an insurer may be estopped from asserting non-coverage if its prior conduct misled the other insurer.
• Highlands Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  688 F.2d 398· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Allstate's renewal policy was in effect due to its own negligence and waiver, and Tri-State's violation of the 'other insurance' clause in the Highlands policy voided Highlands' coverage.
• Am. Bankers Ins. Co. OF Fla. & Olin's Miami Rent A Car, Inc. v. Leatherby Ins. Co. & Julio Gonzalez
  350 So. 2d 353· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-08-31 ·cited 6×
  American Bankers Insurance Company and Olin's Miami Rent A Car challenged a declaratory judgment finding that Bankers was the primary insurer for a rental car accident. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Bankers' escape clause takes precedence over Leathe
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sentry Ins. Co.
  288 So. 2d 556· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-01-16 ·cited 6×
  Liberty Mutual appeals a judgment dismissing its third-party claim against Hardware Mutual for concurrent insurance coverage following a tractor-trailer accident. The court reversed, holding that Hardware's policy provided coverage for the driver under the omnibus clause despite
• Ind. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mitchell
  409 F.2d 392· 7th Cir.· 1969-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Lumbermens policy's 'escape' clause, which excluded coverage if other 'excess' insurance was available, was effective, thus relieving Lumbermens of liability.
• Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cooney
  303 F.2d 253· 9th Cir.· 1962-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding no merit in the appellees' contentions regarding insurance policy interpretation, subrogation rights under California law, and contract integration.
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. Nat'l Indem. Co.
  292 F.2d 214· 8th Cir.· 1961-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that National's policy did not cover the accident due to a contingent liability endorsement, Casualty's policy provided only excess coverage, and Travelers' policy covered the leased vehicles involved in the accident.
• Lawrence B. and Harriet F. Vogel v. N. Assurance Co.
  219 F.2d 409· 3d Cir.· 1955-02-17 ·cited 6×
  Under Pennsylvania law, a seller who contracts to sell land holds the property and insurance proceeds in trust for the buyer, allowing the buyer to recover from the seller's insurer even if the buyer pays the full purchase price.
• Am. Cas. Co. v. Health Care Indem., Inc.
  613 F. Supp. 2d 1310· M.D. Fla.· 2009-04-29 ·cited 5×
  The court granted HCI's motion for summary judgment, finding that ACC provided primary coverage for Butler's actions at Greenbrook Nursing Home, and both ACC and HCI provided primary coverage for actions at Edward White Hospital due to mutually repugnant excess clauses. The court
• Golden Door Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters
  758 F. Supp. 708· S.D. Fla.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that consignors have direct rights of recovery under a jeweler's block policy, and their claims are not barred by the insured's alleged fraudulent acts, as the policy's liability provisions override exclusions.
• Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Bituminous Cas. Corp.
  851 F.2d 98· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 5×
  The lack of a subrogation right does not preclude an insurer from pursuing a direct action for contribution against another insurer allegedly liable for the same loss.
• Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Everett
  292 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1961-06-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the insured's prolonged vacancy of the property increased the physical hazard, and the existence of additional insurance increased the moral hazard, thus voiding the policy.
• Keenan Hopkins Schmidt & Stowell Contractors, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  653 F. Supp. 2d 1255· M.D. Fla.· 2009-09-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Continental policy provided only excess coverage, and because the primary insurers' policy limits were not exhausted, Continental had no duty to indemnify or defend. Additionally, the court found the claims barred by the 'known and continuing loss' provisi
• Canal Ins. Co. v. First Gen. Ins. Co.
  889 F.2d 604· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the First General policy provided coverage for the accident, while the Canal policy did not, and that First General wrongfully refused to defend the insured.
• United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  858 F.2d 882· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that where two excess insurance policies contain conflicting exhaustion clauses, they cancel each other out, requiring ratable contribution based on policy limits, and that prejudgment interest is recoverable in such contribution actions.
• Steve D. Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.
  832 F.2d 309· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 4×
  An excess insurance policy does not 'drop down' to provide primary coverage when the underlying primary insurer becomes insolvent, absent specific policy language to that effect.
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  823 F.2d 708· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that when two excess liability insurance policies have mutually repugnant 'other insurance' clauses, liability should be apportioned based on the respective policy limits, not equally or by the 'coverage follows the car' principle.
• Burnell Gaskin, Jr. v. Hiram Jowers
  775 F.2d 621· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the driver of the leased truck was an insured under the lessee's insurance policy, making both policies primary insurers.
• Pa. Mfrs'. Ass'n Ins. Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
  648 F.2d 914· 3d Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 4×
  The lessee's insurer is solely responsible for defense costs because its policy covered contractual liability, including the lessee's obligation to indemnify the owner's insurer for all liability, including defense expenses.
• Emp'rs Cas. Co. v. Emp'rs Commercial Union Ins. Co.
  632 F.2d 1215· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the truck was a non-owned vehicle under Commercial Union's policy, making its coverage excess, and affirmed the equal sharing of excess liability between Employers and Commercial Union.