"Other Insurance" Clauses

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

• Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc. v. Demshar
  312 So. 2d 479· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-04-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the exclusion for use in the 'automobile business' did not apply because the policy's definition was specific and did not include transporting automobiles, and that the Liberty Mutual policy provided primary coverage.
• Pac. Power & Light Co. v. Transp. Indem. Co.
  460 F.2d 959· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that where two insurance policies contain mutually repugnant 'excess insurance' clauses, Oregon's Lamb-Weston Rule requires proration of both liability and defense costs between the insurers.
• Arletha C. Sapp v. LaVIOLETTE
  258 So. 2d 507· Fla. 1st DCA· 1972-02-24 ·cited 4×
  This case addresses whether two automobile liability insurance policies issued by the same insurer to cover vehicles owned by a married couple are both available to satisfy a judgment for injuries caused by one of the vehicles. The court held that both policies are available to r
• Crowley's Milk Co., Inc. v. Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co.
  426 F.2d 752· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff was an unnamed insured under the defendant's policy because the accident arose out of the loading of the truck, which constitutes 'use' under the policy, and that the 'other insurance' clauses did not conflict, making the defendant primary insure
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Underwriters Ins. Co.
  389 F.2d 767· 10th Cir.· 1968-03-04 ·cited 4×
  When one insurance policy contains a pro rata clause and another contains an excess clause, the pro rata policy is primary and the excess policy only covers after the primary policy is exhausted.
• Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Atl. Nat'l Ins. Co.
  207 So. 2d 329· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-02-23 ·cited 4×
  Auto-Owners Insurance Company appealed from an adverse declaratory judgment ruling in a dispute with Atlantic National Insurance Company over liability coverage and contribution rights following a negligent operation accident involving vehicles insured under both policies. The co
• Emp'rs Mut. Cas. Co. v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co.
  384 F.2d 111· 10th Cir.· 1967-10-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Employers Mutual policy provided only $5,000 in primary coverage for permissive users, not $200,000, and remanded for recalculation of loss apportionment.
• The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Ind. Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co.
  382 F.2d 839· 5th Cir.· 1967-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Fidelity was entitled to reformation of its policy to reflect the parties' intent that coverage be excess over Indiana's policy, and that the policy was effectively cancelled as of July 1, 1962.
• Phoenix Assurance Co. OF NEW York v. Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co. OF NEW York
  202 So. 2d 122· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-08-09 ·cited 4×
  Phoenix Assurance Company appealed a declaratory judgment that imposed pro rata liability on both insurers following a car accident. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that after voiding an exclusionary endorsement in the Bankers policy as repugnant to
• United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Transp. Cas. Ins. Co.
  747 So. 2d 404· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-10-20 ·cited 3×
  United States Fire Insurance Company appeals from a final summary judgment determining the pro-rata allocation of liability coverage between two insurance carriers covering a motor vehicle accident. The court affirmed the partial summary judgment establishing pro-rata coverage bu
• Utah Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  983 F.2d 1549· 10th Cir.· 1993-01-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Utah Power & Light (UP & L) was an insured under International's policy, that International was estopped from rescinding the policy due to misrepresentations and omissions, and that International was barred from contesting the reasonableness of the settlement
• Railhead Freight Sys., Inc. v. United States Fire Ins. Co.
  924 F.2d 994· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the terms of the insurance policy itself, not contractual indemnification agreements or ICC endorsements, determine primary coverage when multiple policies are involved.
• Contrans, Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
  836 F.2d 163· 3d Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Old Republic policy's limiting clause did not constitute an escape clause, but rather only avoided coverage on the trailer, making Old Republic primarily liable for the tractor. The court further held that St. Paul's coverage was excess, as Old Republic's
• Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Ins. Co.
  949 So. 2d 293· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-02-14 ·cited 2×
  Progressive Insurance appealed a summary judgment dismissing its bad faith claim against Nationwide Insurance. The court held that a primary insurance carrier owes a duty of good faith to an excess carrier under Florida law, reversing the summary judgment and remanding for trial.
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. Integon Gen. Ins. Co.
  748 So. 2d 362· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-01-07 ·cited 2×
  Travelers Insurance appeals a summary judgment dismissing its contribution claim against Integon General Insurance Company. The case arises from a dispute over allocation of an uninsured motorist arbitration award between two insurers with overlapping coverage for the same injure
• Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n
  715 So. 2d 1119· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-08-19 ·cited 2×
  Nationwide appeals a trial court judgment that apportioned uninsured motorist coverage between two insurers on a pro-rata basis. The court reversed, holding that because Nationwide's policy explicitly made its coverage excess over USAA's coverage limit, and the damages awarded we
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co.
  711 So. 2d 84· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-04-15 ·cited 2×
  Where two insurance policies contain 'other insurance' clauses that render them mutually repugnant, they are deemed primary and share the loss on a pro rata basis according to policy limits, unless one policy explicitly permits equal sharing and the other does not prohibit it.
• Terry v. Hallcom and Bonnie L.T. Hallcom
  654 So. 2d 245· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The Hallcoms sought to recover full insurance proceeds from two fire insurance policies covering the same home, despite 'other insurance' clauses requiring proration. The Florida appellate court affirmed that the insurers could prorate payments based on policy limits when the ins
• J. Walters Constr., Inc. v. Gilman Paper Co.
  620 So. 2d 219· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-06-15 ·cited 2×
  J. Walters Construction contracted with Gilman Paper Company to perform construction work and agreed to indemnify Gilman and secure insurance naming Gilman as an additional insured. When an employee was injured and settled his claim against Gilman, Gilman sought reimbursement fro
• ST. John's Reg'l Health Ctr. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading
  980 F.2d 1222· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the pooled liability agreement did not cover the event and was not 'other insurance'.
• Guar. Ins. v. Gulf Ins.
  628 F. Supp. 867· S.D. Fla.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the party seeking indemnity from another insurer bears the burden of apportioning damages when a general verdict includes both covered and uncovered claims, and failure to do so bars recovery.
• Elba Alvarado Aviles v. Burgos
  783 F.2d 270· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in determining co-primary coverage based on the Puerto Rico permissive use statute, as the lease agreement and policy language dictated the insurance obligations. The court also corrected calculation errors in the amended judgment.
• P. L. Kanter Agency, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  541 F.2d 519· 6th Cir.· 1976-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurer whose policy was in effect when the loss occurred and when the errors and omissions continued is the primary insurer, even if the initial errors began under a prior policy.
• Ga. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.
  534 F.2d 1108· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-06 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge holds that identical 'other insurance' clauses providing for equal shares contribution should be interpreted as an agreement for equal sharing, even if phrased permissively.
• RAY v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  498 F.2d 220· 6th Cir.· 1974-06-14 ·cited 2×
  Under Ohio law, an insurance policy's clear and unambiguous language excluding uninsured motorist coverage for owned but undescribed vehicles is effective, preventing the "stacking" of coverages from multiple policies.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  490 F.2d 407· 4th Cir.· 1974-01-09 ·cited 2×
  Conflicting 'excess' and 'escape' clauses in insurance policies are mutually repugnant and should be disregarded, with the loss pro-rated between the insurers based on their policy limits.
• United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Gillen
  280 So. 2d 52· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-07-06 ·cited 2×
  USAA appeals a declaratory judgment holding that an "other insurance" clause in uninsured motorist coverage is void under Florida public policy. The court must determine whether the policy, issued in New Hampshire, is governed by New Hampshire law (which permits such clauses) or
• Cornell v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  465 F.2d 22· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an insurer can be estopped or deemed to have waived a policy exclusion if its agent makes assurances of coverage to induce the insured to switch carriers, even if the policy itself contains limiting provisions.
• Dubuque Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Reynolds Co., Inc.
  128 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1942-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the Home policy constitutes 'other insurance' on the same property, thus voiding the Dubuque policy according to its terms.
• Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Ferris
  312 So. 3d 112· Fla. 5th DCA· 2020-07-23 ·cited 1×
  Progressive Express Insurance Company appeals a declaratory judgment determining the priority of uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage between two policies covering an injured employee. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that State Farm's pro rata UM cov
• Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Fla. Dep't OF Fin. Servs. for Aequicap Ins. Co.
  125 So. 3d 201· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-02-06 ·cited 1×
  Progressive Insurance appeals a summary judgment requiring it to indemnify TBT and Pateo for defense costs in a personal injury suit arising from a truck accident caused by their subcontractor Ortiz. The court held that an indemnification agreement between the insured parties ove
• Atl. Cas. & Fire Ins. v. Nat'l Am. Ins.
  915 F. Supp. 1218· M.D. Fla.· 1996-01-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Atlantic Casualty's policy provided excess coverage, and that Florida's Claims Administration Statute did not apply to create estoppel in this intra-insurer dispute.
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Chicago Ins. Co.
  994 F.2d 1254· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that an insurer's obligation is not triggered without a formal tender of defense by the insured, even if the insurer has knowledge of the claim.
• Provost v. Unger
  949 F.2d 161· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-23 ·cited 1×
  The court clarified that Aetna should recover its settlement contribution, and denied other petitions for rehearing.
• St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Marine Transp. Servs. Sea-Barge Grp., Inc.
  1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15848· S.D. Fla.· 1989-12-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) provided the exclusive remedy for claims of bailment and negligence, barring those claims. The court also found that the carrier's insurance was excess to the shipper's insurer, and the shipper failed to prove insurance
• Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Morgan
  513 So. 2d 1283· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-09-09 ·cited 1×
  Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company appealed a judgment declaring it the primary insurer for Joseph Morgan in a wrongful death action. The court affirmed, holding that Morgan's truck qualified as a 'hired vehicle' under Lumbermens' policy and that Protective Insurance's 'other ins
• Blue Bird Body Co., Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
  583 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-08 ·cited 1×
  Both insurers are primary insurers, each liable for half the settlement cost, as the accident arose out of the use of both the tractor and the trailer.
• Am. Choice Healthcare, LLC v. Coverys Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-04
  The court denied the defendant's motions to alter/amend judgment, for remittitur, and for a new trial, upholding the prior judgment for the plaintiff.
• Gemini Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
  119 F.4th 1296· 11th Cir.· 2024-10-23
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Gemini's 'other insurance' clause is excess to Zurich's, reversing the district court's pro rata allocation and remanding for a $1,000,000 judgment for Gemini. The court also affirmed the award of prejudgment interest on the first $500,000 and direc
• Clear Blue Ins. Co. v. Gemini Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-29
  The court held that contractual indemnity obligations between a contractor and subcontractor override conflicting 'other insurance' clauses in their respective insurers' policies, making the indemnitor's insurer primarily responsible for defense costs after primary policy exhaust
• Gemini Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-08-22
  Where two insurance policies contain mutually repugnant excess 'other insurance' clauses, Florida law requires apportionment of liability on a pro rata basis according to policy limits.
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Custom Climate Concepts, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-10
  The court held that the exclusion clause in the hired/non-owned auto liability endorsement unambiguously applied because another policy afforded the same or similar coverage, relieving the insurer of its duty to defend or indemnify.
• EFiled: Feb 28 2014 04:22PM Transaction ID 55074028 Case No. N10C-06-141 FSS
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2014-02-28
  The court held that three specific International insurance policies carry full defense obligations in addition to policy limits. Furthermore, the court ruled that New York law, which governs this case, does not require horizontal exhaustion of excess insurance layers. The court f
• Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Feli Petrik and Nihad Christian Jarallah
  915 So. 2d 640· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-10-07
  Auto-Owners Insurance appealed a trial court's determination that its personal auto liability policy provided coverage for injuries caused by the insured's wife, and cross-appealed the court's limitation of coverage to the policy limits. The court affirmed coverage existed but re
• Burlington Ins. v. Asturias USA Motorsports Co.
  370 F. Supp. 2d 1272· S.D. Fla.· 2005-05-24
  The court held that the insurance policy in question was subject to Florida's uninsured motorist coverage requirements because it covered a specifically identified class of vehicles, and the 'Other Insurance' clause did not render it non-primary liability insurance for the purpos
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Del. Elec. Coop.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2003-05-02
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the plaintiff was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating its contractual indemnification claim. The plaintiff had the opportunity to bring a third-party claim against the employer and its
• Alford Timber Inc. v. Caulkins
  809 So. 2d 48· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-02-06
  Alford Timber challenges three orders determining that both its insurance policy and Transportation Casualty's policy provide primary coverage for claims arising from a tractor-trailer accident. The court held that only Transportation Casualty's policy provides primary coverage,
• MIC Prop. & Cas. Ins. Corp. v. Int'l Ins. Co.
  990 F.2d 573· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-06
  The court held that International's policy provided coverage for the accident and that it was obligated to contribute to the settlement, but not one-half as determined by the district court.
• 20TH Century Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  965 F.2d 747· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-27
  The court held that Liberty's liability was $100,000 because the limiting clause in the rental agreement was not conspicuous, and that Admiral's excess policy attached after Liberty's primary policy was exhausted, not after 20th Century's policy.
• Laverna Zeeb & FJS, Inc. v. Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co.
  946 F.2d 601· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-11
  The court held that applying the 'other insurance' clause to void the NFU policy would be beyond its purpose and produce an unconscionable result given the facts.