October 7, 2022

Volume XII, Number 280

Advertisement

October 06, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 05, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 04, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Massachusetts Adopts Minority Rule in Determining Priority Among Policies

On November 1, 2017, Massachusetts joined a minority of jurisdictions to rely on a strict construction focused on solely the language of "other insurance" clauses when determining priority of coverage between a "true excess" policy and a primary policy that is excess under certain circumstances. In Great Divide Insurance Company v. Lexington Insurance Company, SJC-12164 (Mass. Nov. 1, 2017), a garbage truck operator employed by EZ Disposal Service, Inc., was driving a garbage truck leased by Capitol Waste Services, Inc. when he struck and killed a bicyclist. The limits of Capitol's primary policy (underwritten by an insurer who was not a party to this suit) were only sufficient to cover only a portion of the loss. Great Divide Insurance Company issued a "hybrid" policy to EZ providing primary coverage for occurrences involving EZ owned automobiles and excess insurance where an occurrence involved a non-owned vehicle like the garbage truck here. Lexington Insurance Company issued an umbrella policy to Capitol that sat above its primary policy. Great Divide brought a declaratory judgment action against Lexington in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a ruling that once the primary policy was exhausted, both Lexington and Great Divide needed to contribute as excess insurers. Lexington argued that Great Divide had issued an essentially primary policy that must be exhausted before its own "true excess" policy could be triggered. The District Court submitted a certified question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, seeking guidance on whether the two policies cover the same level of risk.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the two insurance companies insured the same level of risk. In so holding, it grounded its opinion in the language of the policies, and in particular, in the "other insurance" provisions. It said that its role is "to effectuate not [its] own ideas about the language that could have been used to best effectuate the intent of the parties but, rather, the actual contract language." A plain reading of the "other insurance" provisions demonstrated that they were both excess policies, as applied to this particular accident.

In reaching its holding, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court noted that "[t]he majority of courts in other States have held that a primary policy with an ‘other insurance' clause is essentially a primary policy, and therefore must be exhausted before a ‘true excess' policy is triggered." Applying this majority rule, the Lexington policy would not have been triggered until after the Great Divide policy had been totally exhausted. However, the Court felt that the minority approach, "that primary insurance policies with ‘other insurance' clauses cover the same level of risk as ‘true excess' policies," more closely reflected the plain language of the "other insurance" provisions. Indeed, the Court rejected many of the rationales articulated in majority jurisdictions as going beyond the plain language of the policies, including examination of policy premiums or the label of the policy. Because there was no ambiguity in the "other insurance" provision of the Great Divide policy, the Court found that there was simply no reason to look beyond that language to premium information or policy title.

© 1998-2022 Wiggin and Dana LLPNational Law Review, Volume VII, Number 309
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Robyn Gallagher Litigation lawyer Wiggin Dana
Counsel

Robyn is Counsel in Wiggin and Dana's Litigation Department.  Her litigation experience has involved a wide range of practice areas and clients, including, insurance, franchise, aviation, product liability, and education.  She has experience litigating in state and federal courts and before various government agencies and arbitral bodies.

Robyn has litigated claims under the Connecticut Product Liability Act ("CPLA"), the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), trademark infringement actions, breach of contract claims, and actions to enforce arbitration clauses. She has...

860-297-3704
Michael Menapace Insurance lawyer Wiggin Dana
Partner

Michael is an insurance lawyer, primarily a litigator defending insurance companies, reinsurers, and insured parties from a wide range of claims that threaten clients’ businesses. He is also a counselor, law school professor, and litigator in areas beyond insurance.

Michael represents insurers in state and federal courts as well as in arbitrations across the country, litigating insurance disputes concerning business practices, bad faith, insurance coverage, reinsurance, premium calculations, and allocation among policies. As a general litigator, he has tried cases concerning utility...

+1 860 297 3733
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement