Opinion ID: 622725
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Separately to each insured against whom

Text: claim is made or ‘suit’ is brought.” Id. at . Steadfast argued that the separation of insureds provision had been applied in the context of coverage, not in the context of determining who was responsible for the payment of deductibles. Id. at . Steadfast further argued that named insureds should not be considered separately for purposes of deductible owed because they are not considered separately for purposes of the No. 11-2307 21 limits of insurance and because the deductibles reduce the limits of insurance. Id. The district court determined that Steadfast attempted to “stretch the policies much further than their language allows” and stated as follows: The Court finds that, at the very best, the policies are ambiguous as to whether Defendants are jointly and severally liable for a claim paid on behalf of any Named Insured. The policies do not even include the phrase “jointly and severally” liable in their provisions. Furthermore, the Separation of Insureds provisions provides that policies shall apply separately as to each insured against whom a suit is brought. Even though Steadfast may be right that courts have applied this provision in the context of coverage rather than deductible payments, the plain language of the provision, at the very least, creates ambiguity as to whether all Named Insureds are jointly and severally liable for each other’s claims. Id. Because the insurance contract was ambiguous, the court concluded Steadfast failed to provide the basis for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Id. at . The court stated it made this “finding only for the purposes of determining the venue question, and not as a final determination on the merits of this case.” Id. In this case, the “Separation of Protected Persons” provision in the Policy is very similar to the provision in Steadfast Insurance Co. The “Separation of Protected Persons” clause states that St. Paul will apply the agree22 No. 11-2307 ment “to each protected person named in the Introduction as if that protected person was the only named one there; and separately to each other protected person.” The provision goes on to state the limit of coverage is shared by all protected persons. Moreover, like the policy in Steadfast Insurance Co., the Policy here does not include the phrase “jointly and severally liable.” Further, the Steadfast Insurance Co. court explicitly rejected the argument St. Paul makes here, i.e., that courts have applied the “Separation of Protected Persons” provision in the context of coverage rather than deductible payments. Id. at . In doing so, the Steadfast Insurance Co. court stated “[e]ven though Steadfast may be right that courts have applied [the Separation of Insureds] provision in the context of coverage rather than deductible payments, the plain language of the provision, at the very least, creates ambiguity as to whether all Named Insureds are jointly and severally liable for each other’s claims.” Id. For these reasons, we also conclude that the “Separation of Protected Persons” provision in the Policy creates further ambiguity, in addition to the ambiguity created by the definition of “you, your and yours” and the way the named insureds were listed, as to whether Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the deductible payments.