Opinion ID: 6325956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: the insuring agreements

Text: {¶ 92} Appellee Ironics, Inc., purchased a single policy agreement, policy 33.300545-90E, (“the agreement”) from Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, appellant, that included a CGL policy and an umbrella policy. The main insuring policy in the agreement between Motorists and Ironics is the CGL policy, which provides that “[Motorists] will pay those sums that [Ironics] becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of    ‘property damage’ to which this insurance applies.” As relevant here, the CGL policy goes on to state that it covers property damage “caused by an ‘occurrence.’ ” The umbrella policy included in the agreement provides that Motorists will pay all sums that Ironics is legally obligated to pay as damages “[i]n excess of the [CGL’s policy limits]” or “[f]or an ‘occurrence’ covered by this policy which is either excluded or not covered by the [CGL policy].” {¶ 93} Given the policy language involved here, the CGL policy sits in a primary position. It is only if the CGL’s policy limits are exhausted or if there is a gap in the CGL policy’s primary coverage, which the umbrella policy would then drop down to fill, that the umbrella policy is applicable. See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. CPS Holdings, Inc., 115 Ohio St.3d 306, 2007-Ohio-4917, 875 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 5.