"Other Insurance" Clauses

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

• Fosso v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  940 F.2d 388· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-07
  The court held that the insured's failure to notify the insurer of duplicate coverage did not preclude benefits because the second policy was not in effect until after the covered event occurred.
• Foremost Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Home Indem. Co.
  897 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-21
  The court held that Home's policy covered the insured's liability, but the Stowers doctrine did not apply because the insured suffered no harm due to a covenant not to execute. Subrogation was limited to the policy limit.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Executive Ins. Co.
  893 F.2d 517· 2d Cir.· 1990-01-19
  The court held that the allegations in the underlying complaints, even if not explicitly stating Weiss's corporate title, implicitly brought the action within the scope of USF&G's policy, obligating USF&G to contribute to Weiss's defense and indemnification.
• Cargill, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. & Huffman Towing Co.
  889 F.2d 174· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-13
  The court held that the St. Paul policy was secondary and contingent due to Huffman's agreement to insure, regardless of the Commercial Union policy's terms.
• Auto. Underwriters, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. V. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  874 F.2d 188· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-16
  The court held that the 'other insurance' clause in the Fireman's Fund policy was an unenforceable 'escape' clause under Pennsylvania law, and therefore Fireman's Fund was obligated to provide coverage.
• Ind. Ins. Co. v. Mission Nat'l Ins. Co.
  874 F.2d 631· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-27
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate for both the determination of car ownership and the apportionment of liability between excess insurers due to disputed material facts and mutually repugnant 'other insurance' clauses.
• Hennes Erecting Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh
  813 F.2d 1074· 10th Cir.· 1987-03-23
  The court held that a waiver or estoppel cannot be used to expand the coverage of an insurance policy beyond its explicit terms, and that a loss caused by a contractor's breach of warranty is excluded under the policy.
• Chicago Ins. Co. v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co.
  503 So. 2d 916· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-02-11
  Chicago Insurance Company sought a setoff for amounts paid by a tortfeasor's insurer when providing excess underinsured motorist coverage, but the court held that the primary insurer, Lumbermen's Mutual, was entitled to the setoff based on the respective policy language and oblig
• RAY v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  479 So. 2d 835· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-12-13
  The court held that the 'Other Insurance' clause in an insurance policy is enforceable and voids coverage when the insured procures additional insurance on the same property, despite the presence of an apportionment clause.
• Am. Underwriters, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co.
  719 F.2d 900· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-28
  An insurer who paid a loss pursuant to its policy cannot seek contribution from another carrier when private agreements between insureds allocated risks and the policies conformed to that allocation.
• Medders v. Foremost Ins. Co.
  49 Fla. Supp. 191· Volusia Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1979-11-01
  Plaintiffs purchased a mobile home with insurance from two companies: Foremost Insurance and Florida Farm Bureau. When the home burned in a total loss, the court applied Florida's Valued Policy Law to determine that the immovable mobile home was subject to the statute, making bot
• LaVIOLETTE v. Arletha C. Sapp
  278 So. 2d 598· Fla.· 1973-05-30
  The Court held that the facts regarding the petitioner's knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel were inadequately developed, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
• United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  456 F.2d 1028· 8th Cir.· 1972-03-24
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the trial court properly interpreted the insurance contracts and applied the appropriate law.
• McCarthy v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co.
  454 F.2d 393· 9th Cir.· 1972-01-06
  The court held that 'other insurance' clauses in two policies are valid and can reduce uninsured motorist coverage to the statutory minimum when the insured has purchased multiple policies, as long as the statutory minimum is met.
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  447 F.2d 75· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-17
  The court held that the lessor's insurance policy did not extend coverage to the lessee, and therefore the lessee's insurer bore the full liability.
• The Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Kincaid
  199 So. 2d 770· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-06-13
  Phoenix Insurance Company appeals a trial court's declaratory judgment invalidating a set-off clause in an automobile insurance policy that would reduce uninsured motorist coverage by amounts paid under the policy's medical payments coverage. The First District Court of Appeal af
• Friedfeld v. Royal Indem. Co. & Eagle Star Ins. Co., Ltd.
  167 So. 2d 586· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-07-07
  Royal Indemnity Company sought a declaratory decree to determine its liability under a pro rata clause in a personal liability insurance policy when the insured also held another policy from Eagle Star. The court held that 'valid and collectible insurance' in the pro rata clause
• Thomas v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  25 Fla. Supp. 60· Dade Cty. Small Cl. Ct.· 1963-01-04
  A Florida small claims court held that an insured is entitled to full indemnity from his insurance carrier for hospital expenses not covered by other insurance, rejecting the insurer's attempt to limit recovery based on a coordination of benefits clause when the other insurance h
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  303 F.2d 821· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-14
  The court held that the trial court erred in submitting the question of whether the injured party was 'riding in, alighting from or getting into or upon' the truck to the jury, as it was a matter of law.
• Edwards v. Commonwealth Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Pa.
  197 F.2d 62· 3d Cir.· 1952-05-28
  The court held that the two insurance policies did not cover the same property, thus the 'other insurance' clause in the defendant's policy was not violated. The court also held that the policy's liability limit was not applicable as the insured amount was less than three-fourths
• Md. Cas. Co. v. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Co. of Tulsa
  170 F.2d 759· 10th Cir.· 1948-11-05
  The court held that National's policy did not cover the accident because the trip was not made pursuant to Eickman's private carrier license.