Opinion ID: 1952280
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Priority of Policies

Text: Since we have determined that Knoller is entitled to coverage under the Indemnity policy, we must now determine the respective rights and obligations of Indemnity and Worldwide under the relevant insurance policies since both policies contain excess insurance provisions. Worldwide asserts that Indemnity's policy should be considered the primary policy because, `in the light of [the] total policy insuring intent' of the Indemnity policy, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Harbor Insurance Co., 603 A.2d 300, 302 (R.I.1992), it was Indemnity `whose coverage was effected for the primary purpose of insuring' the risk that Knoller or Arechavala would get into an accident in the rental car. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Depositors Insurance Co., 480 N.W.2d 657, 659 (Minn.Ct.App.1992). However, Indemnity contends conversely, that Worldwide should either provide the primary insurance coverage, or, in the alternative, that pursuant to our decision in Brown v. Travelers Insurance Co., 610 A.2d 127 (R.I.1992), the policies should be applied on a pro rata basis. We agree that Brown applies to the facts as presented in the record before us. Brown involved an accident occurring while Brown was test-driving a vehicle owned by Hurd Buick (Hurd). Brown was individually insured by a policy that provided, like the Worldwide policy, that `any insurance we provide for a vehicle you do not own shall be excess over other collectible insurance.' Id. at 128. The insurance policy covering Hurd provided that a Hurd customer was not a covered insured unless the customer had no other insurance or had insurance in an amount less than the financial responsibility law required. In light of the competing clauses that both attempted to avoid coverage, we determined that an examination of the overall policies' insuring intent was not helpful. Instead, we concluded that requiring both insurers to share the loss on a pro rata basis was a more effective manner of resolving the conflict. That solution, we opined, would avoid encouraging the complication of insurance legerdemain at the expense of the policy holders' money or the courts' time because it prevented insurance companies from engaging in a battle of the drafters. Id. at 130. We find the analysis in Brown to be controlling in regard to the facts in the record before us.