Source: http://openjurist.org/166/f3d/343/hanover-insurance-company
Timestamp: 2013-12-12 20:39:16
Document Index: 771133057

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 11580', '§ 11580', '§ 11580', '§ 11580', '§ 11580', '§ 11580', '§ 11580', '§ 11580', '§ 11']

166 F3d 343 Hanover Insurance Company | OpenJurist
166 F. 3d 343 - Hanover Insurance Company	Home166 f3d 343 hanover insurance company
166 F3d 343 Hanover Insurance Company 166 F.3d 343
HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY; Federal Insurance Company,Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Defendant/Cross-Claimant/Appellant,andGENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL AUTO LEASE, INC.; Aetna Casualty &Surety Co.; Young Eun Kang, Defendants,andJane GOOTNICK; Jim Henson Productions, Inc., Defendants/Cross-Defendants.HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY; Federal Insurance Company,Plaintiffs/Appellees,v.WALT DISNEY COMPANY, The Walt Disney company, Defendant/Cross-Claimant,andGENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL AUTO LEASE, INC.; Young Eun Kang, Defendants,andAETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO., Defendant/Appellant,andJane GOOTNICK; Jim Henson Productions, Inc., Defendants/Cross-Defendants.
No. 97-55330, 97-55368.DC No. CV-94-04873-RSWL.
Argued and Submitted May 4, 1998.Decided Dec. 8, 1998.
Before CANBY and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,1 District Judge.
* The facts of this dispute are known to the parties and will not be set forth here. The district court held that Disney and its excess insurance carrier Aetna were liable for all damages and expenses arising from the accident under the provisions of Cal. Ins.Code § 11580.9(d) (West 1988). That section provides in pertinent part:
[W]here two or more policies affording valid and collectible insurance apply to the same motor vehicle in an occurrence out of which a liability loss shall arise, it shall be conclusively presumed that the insurance afforded by that policy in which the motor vehicle is described or rated as an owned automobile shall be primary and the insurance afforded by any other policy or policies shall be excess.
(Emphasis added). The district court held that Disney had, in effect, one policy providing $4 million in coverage, of which Disney provided the first $2 million in coverage and Aetna the next $2 million. The policy, in the district court's view, adequately described the vehicle involved in the accident, and was therefore primary.
The district court mischaracterized Disney's arrangement with Aetna, which led to a misapplication of § 11580.9(d). Aetna's policy was an excess indemnity policy, and was so denominated. Disney was responsible for the first $2 million of liability, under the retained limit, before Aetna's coverage was triggered. Aetna's policy included no duty to defend. Disney did not insure anyone; it simply went without insurance for the first $2 million of liability.
Section 11580.9(d) by its terms can have no application to Disney. It applies where two or more policies of insurance apply to the same vehicle causing a liability. Disney is not an insurer and has no policy of insurance with regard to the first $2 million of its liability. The legislative purpose of § 11580.9 was to establish "the total public policy of this state respecting the order in which two or more of such liability insurance policies covering the same loss shall apply. " Cal. Veh.Code § 11580.8 (emphasis added). Disney accordingly is not within the scope of § 11580.9(d). See Metro U.S. Services, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 96 Cal.App.3d 678, 158 Cal.Rptr. 207, 208-09 (Cal.Ct.App.1979) (city that self-insures its vehicles is not issuer of a "policy" and is therefore not subject to § 11580.9(b)). Because Disney has issued no policy, it obviously has issued no policy rating or describing a vehicle within the meaning of § 11580.9(d). See Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. Workmen's Auto Ins. Co., 58 Cal.App.4th 1543, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 725 (Cal.Ct.App.1997) (self-insuring rental car company that makes required cash deposit that does not describe or rate vehicles is not governed by § 11580.9)).
Between Hanover/Federal and Disney, then, § 11