Title: Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hertz Corp.

State: louisiana

Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court

Document:

366 So. 2d 1362 (1978) AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY v. The HERTZ CORPORATION. No. 62619. Supreme Court of Louisiana. December 15, 1978. *1363 Emile L. Turner, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellee and cross-appellant. Joel L. Borrello and Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Adams & Reese, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant and cross-appellee. PER CURIAM. Pursuant to Rule 12 of this Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified questions or propositions of law to this Court for rendition of a judgment or opinion. This Court has, within its discretion, agreed to answer the questions certified to it. According to the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Style of the Case, the Statement of Facts, and the questions certified are as follows: "(1) Style of the Case "(2) Statement of Facts The court ruled the clause limiting coverage to excess liability did not apply. The tractor and trailer operated as a unit, and so the `automobile' referred to was at least partly owned by Mississippi. The court discerned no Louisiana precedent to control the question. "(3) Questions to be Certified Upon review, we find no conflict between Mays v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 242 So. 2d 264 (La.App.2d Cir. 1970), which was correctly decided, and Brady v. American Ins. Co., 198 So. 2d 907 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, the federal district court correctly applied the rule of the Mays case in finding that "although Hertz provides no coverage for Mississippi Valley Silica under its rental agreement, Hertz does provide coverage for Mississippi's driver, Floyd B. Neal." The federal district court also reached the correct result under Louisiana law in concluding that both Aetna and Hertz provided primary insurance for the accident sued upon and in applying the proration clauses of the respective insurance policies. The provision in the Aetna policy that its insurance shall be excess with respect to a hired automobile or non-owned automobile is inapplicable. Because the truck-tractor and the trailer became one vehicle for the transportation of cargo, Mays v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, the "automobile" in the accident was at least partially owned by Mississippi Valley Silica, the named insured of Aetna. CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED.