Opinion ID: 198024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Umbrella Policies

Text: 22 At the time of the accident, Republic had issued three additional policies, RU-01000, RU-02000 and RU-03000, to U-Haul. These umbrella policies provided U-Haul with up to three million dollars of liability insurance coverage. According to plaintiffs, these policies also covered permissive users of U-Haul vehicles, and thus covered Obert and Drywall at the time of accident. As a result, plaintiffs claim that Republic owes them an additional three million dollars. 23 The district court concluded that, because Obert and Drywall were not named insureds under the umbrella policies, they were not covered by the contracts. That conclusion relied upon an incomplete and erroneous reading of the umbrella policies. The language in the insurance policies at issue clearly defines an insured as including any person while using an automobile or aircraft owned by ... the named insured ... provided the actual use of the automobile or aircraft is ... with the named insured's permission. Because Obert was operating a vehicle owned by a named insured and Obert's use of that vehicle was with the named insured's permission, there is no question that Obert was insured within the definition provided in the body of the umbrella policies. 8 However, our inquiry does not end here. 24 Appended to each of the umbrella policies is a series of Amendatory Endorsements. These endorsements each serve to alter, amend or clarify terms contained within the main bodies of the insurance contracts. By adding these endorsements, Republic is able to tailor standard insurance contracts to meet a particular insured's needs. 25 Each of the umbrella policies contains a special endorsement which explicitly amends the definition of insured provided in the body of the policy. 9 These endorsements exclude all renters of vehicles from coverage under the policies. If these endorsements were agreed to by both Republic and U-Haul, and were added to the umbrella policies before the date of the Fratus accident, then the policies do not provide Obert, as a permissive user of U-Haul's truck, with any coverage. 26 Republic claims that these endorsements were part of the original insurance contracts signed by U-Haul in 1985. However, plaintiffs contend that these endorsements were not added to the umbrella policies until after the date of the accident, and that Republic is not truthful about the date of the endorsements' birth in a nefarious attempt to preclude plaintiffs from collecting more money. These accusations are indeed troubling. Furthermore, they are not altogether unsupported. 27 In the lower left-hand corner of the amendatory endorsements at issue is a typewritten notation which reads 7/2/86 dmm. No similar notations appear in the corners of the numerous other amendatory endorsements which were part of the RU-01000 and RU-02000 contracts when they were signed in 1985. However, similar notations do appear in the lower left-hand corners of many endorsements which were added to the contracts in 1986 and beyond. Republic offers no explanation for this inconsistency. Furthermore, in response to interrogatories, Republic denied any knowledge of the identity of either the author of the policies at issue or dmm, and claims to be unable to determine or locate these former employees. 10 28 Thus, a material dispute of fact exists regarding the original date of the endorsements amending the umbrella policies' definition of insured. If the amendments were added after June 4, 1985, then Obert was insured under the policies. If the amendment was added before June 4, 1985, the policies did not provide any coverage for Obert. This is a factual dispute that must be resolved by the district court upon remand. 11