TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Guaranty National Insurance Company, a Colorado Corporation v. American Motorists Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation

GUARANTY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellant

Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co., a Colo. Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., an Ill. Corp., 981 F.2d 1108 (9th Cir. 1992)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 18, 1992
Docket
No. 91-35836
Judges
Poole, Fernandez, Nelson
Citations
981 F.2d 110892 Daily Journal DAR 170531992 WL 37026392 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 101191992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32758

Opinion

The decision of the district court reported at 758 F.Supp. 1394 (D.Mont.1991) is affirmed, with this limitation.

One of the parties to the case in the district court was Harbor Insurance Company, which had issued a true excess insurance policy. In this setting, a true excess policy is one which is specifically intended to only come into play when the limits of the underlying coverage are exhausted. It is issued in anticipation of the existence of the underlying policy and is priced in the belief that the excess carrier will not have to provide a defense.

See Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Continental Nat’l Am. Ins. Cos., 861 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir.1989) (“an excess insurer predicates the premiums it charges upon the obligations that it and the primary insurer assume, including the primary insurer’s obligation to defend all suits until exhaustion of its liability limits”).

The dispute resolved by the district court here was between two carriers which had each issued a “primary” insurance policy. Due to the policy provisions involved, or the relationship among the parties to the accident, the coverage of one of the policies had become “excess” to the coverage afforded by the other, or what could be called “excess by coincidence.”

In a case involving a true excess insurance policy, the equitable factors favoring proration of costs of defense would not, or may not, be present. The district court’s decision here involved the duty to contribute to defense costs of an insurance company which had issued an insurance policy which was excess by coincidence, and it is that decision which we affirm today.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1993: 21995: 11999: 12000: 12002: 22012: 12015: 12021: 12023: 119932026peak 1993 · 2

Most recent

  1. Arch Insurance Company v. Knight Specialty Insurance CompanyNo. 2:21-cv-00723 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2023)
  2. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANYNo. 2:17-cv-04183 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2021)
  3. Century Indemnity Co. v. Marine Group, LLC131 F. Supp. 3d 1018 (D. Or. 2015)
  4. National Casualty Co. v. Western World Insurance669 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 2012)
  5. American Simmental Association, a Montana Non-Profit Association v. Coregis Insurance Company, an Indiana Corporation, Third Party St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, a Minnesota Corporation, Third Party American Simmental Association, a Montana Non-Profit Association v. Coregis Insurance Company, an Indiana Corporation, Third Party St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, a Minnesota Corporation, Third Party American Simmental Association, a Montana Non-Profit Association v. Coregis Insurance Company, an Indiana Corporation, Third Party St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, a Minnesota Corporation, Third Party282 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2002)
  6. American Simmental Ass'n v. Coregis Insurance282 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 2002)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Cont'l Nat'l Am. Ins. Companies & Transcontinental Ins. Co., 861 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1989) 20
Guar. Nat'l Ins. v. Am. Motorists Ins., 758 F. Supp. 1394 (D. Mont. 1991) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list