Opinion ID: 7704
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: primary versus excess coverage

Text: Finally, the district court found Ranger's coverage primary because Ranger's policy provided that its coverage is primary for any covered auto while hired or borrowed by [Empire] and used exclusively in [Empire's] business.'  Ranger does not specifically challenge the basis for that holding. We therefore will not disturb the court's holding that Ranger's policy provided primary coverage. Nonetheless, Ranger contends that Generali's policy provides primary coverage because the insured, Hooker, owned the truck.6 We agree. The Generali policy expressly provides that [f]or any covered auto' you own, this policy provides primary insurance. Accordingly, we hold that both Ranger and Generali provide primary coverage of the accident. In the court below, the parties stipulated as follows: The parties agree that if the Court finds that the Generali policy was triggered, and that both the Ranger policy and the Generali policy provide primary coverage for the incident in question, the responsibility for coverage shall be shared on a pro rata basis between Ranger and Generali, based on the amount of coverage provided for under each policy. In effect, Ranger would bear two-thirds (2/3) of the proven loss, and Generali would bear one-third (1/3) of the proven loss. In accordance with the above stipulation, we find that the Ranger policy covers two-thirds of the proven loss, and the Generali policy covers one-third of the proven loss. 6 It is undisputed that Hooker owned the truck. 10 For the reasons expressed herein, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and RENDERED against Generali in accordance with this opinion. 11