Opinion ID: 6221087
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: for losses to which your primary

Text: insurance applies. We will pay damages for which an insured becomes legally liable because of personal injury resulting from a loss with no retained limit requirement. Our coverage is no broader than the primary insurance except for our limit of liability. The policy elsewhere defines the terms “we” and “our” as “the company providing this insurance,” i.e., ANPAC, and the first two sentences of this coverage section state what “damages” liability ANPAC “will pay.” The third sentence, 8 ANPAC V. GARDINEER by contrast, is framed as a limitation on the “coverage” described in the prior two sentences (or, perhaps, elsewhere in the policy), and that sentence is thus not itself an additional grant of coverage. Notably, in describing the coverage granted, the first two sentences each use the identical phrase “damages for which an insured becomes legally liable” (emphasis added), which each sentence then combines with certain respective additional limitations. Accordingly, by its plain terms, this coverage section only provides coverage for certain damages for which an “insured” becomes liable. This section therefore extends coverage to Hill’s liability for damages only if Hill is an “insured” within the meaning of the policy. As relevant here, the policy defines “insured” as “you or a relative,” and “you” and “your” mean “the named insured shown in the Declarations” as well as that named insured’s “spouse if living in the same household.” The only named insured listed in the policy’s “Declarations” is Dennis, and he had a wife who lived in the same household with him. Accordingly, the term “insured” under the policy means Dennis, his wife, and any “relative.” In turn, the policy defines a “relative” as “a person living in your household and related to you by blood, marriage, or adoption, including a ward or foster child.” Because it is undisputed that Hill did not reside in Dennis and his wife’s household, Hill does not qualify as a “relative” under the policy and is therefore not an “insured” under the policy. Gardineer does not contest this point on appeal. Because Hill is not an “insured,” the unambiguous language of the coverage section of Dennis’s umbrella policy does not extend coverage to Hill’s liability arising from the accident with Gardineer. ANPAC V. GARDINEER 9