ILNews

COA: primary before true excess policies

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana's "Lease Statute" can't be used to determine the priority of insurance coverage between a primary insurance policy and true excess policies, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals today in a case of first impression.

Old Republic Insurance appealed the trial court's decision in Old Republic Insurance Co. v. RLI Insurance Co., et al., No. 49A04-0709-CV-523, which determined Old Republic's policy had higher priority over other excess policies and that the Lease Statute didn't allow for ranking different types of insurance policies.

Old Republic provided primary business auto insurance for the Kroger Co., but under certain circumstances, it would provide excess insurance.

Michael Laux drove as an independent contractor for Quickway Express Inc. and owned his own tractor-trailer. While hauling a Kroger trailer, he was involved in an accident that killed a boy and seriously injured his mother. The mother filed suit against Laux and Quickway, alleging negligence and wrongful death. Quickway maintained several excess insurance policies and one primary insurance policy.

Old Republic wanted a judicial determination of the priority of coverage afforded to Laux and Quickway; the court found Old Republic to be a primary policy that provides excess coverage only by operation of the policy's other insurance provision.

The court ranked the priority of coverage, ranking Quickway's primary policy first, then Old Republic, and then the excess insurance policies.

Old Republic appealed, arguing Indiana Code Section 27-8-9-9, Indiana's "Lease Statute," should apply to determine the priority of coverage between primary policies and true excess policies. Old Republic believed its coverage should have been considered excess instead of primary.

The Court of Appeals turned to its ruling in Monroe Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Langreck, 816 N.E.2d 485, 492 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). In that case, the court determined that under Indiana's Owner Statute, a true excess policy is secondary in priority to a primary insurance policy, even if the primary tries to make itself excess. In this case, the court found Indiana's Lease Statute is in pari materia with the Owner's Statute and applies only to determine priority between insurance policies providing the same level of coverage, wrote Judge Edward Najam.

As such, the Lease Statute can't prioritize the excess insurer's policies ahead of Old Republic's. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Old Republic's motion for summary judgment and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the excess insurers.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT