Opinion ID: 453497
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Insurance Clauses

Text: 30 The district court observed in its opinion that the policies' other insurance clauses would provide the method for allocating liability among the various policies, but that these clauses would not affect an insurer's primary duty to indemnify ACandS. The district court's order does not mention the other insurance clauses specifically, but the order does provide that, once triggered, a policy is required to respond in full to ACandS' legal liability. 31 It is not apparent that ACandS' motion for summary judgment called upon the district court to interpret the other insurance clauses, and it is not clear whether the district court's comments with respect to this issue were intended to be incorporated into the order which was made final for the purposes of appellate review. Aetna argues, however, that the district court did purport to interpret these clauses, and that its interpretation is properly before us. Moreover, Aetna contends that the district court erred because, under Pennsylvania law, an insurer is obligated to indemnify its insured only for the portion of liability provided for in a policy's other insurance clause. See Vrabel v. Scholler, 369 Pa. 235, 242-43, 85 A.2d 858, 861-62 (1952). To the extent that the judgment before us may be read to incorporate an interpretation of the other insurance clauses, it will be vacated so that the district court may consider Aetna's argument as to Pennsylvania law.