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. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT