Opinion ID: 2219615
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Primary-Excess Insurance.

Text: United urges Continental's policy was primary, or in the alternative, the two policies were excess and the settlement and defense costs should be prorated. Both policies contain identical other insurance clauses providing in pertinent part: If other valid and collectible insurance is available to the insured for a loss we cover..., our obligations are limited as follows: a. Primary Insurance This insurance is primary except when b. below applies. If this insurance is primary, our obligations are not affected unless any of the other insurance is also primary. Then, we will share with all that other insurance by the method described in c. below. b. Excess Insurance This insurance is excess over any other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis: (1) That is Fire, Extended Coverage, Builders Risk, Installation Risk or similar coverage for your work; (2) That is Fire insurance for premises rented to you; or (3) If the loss arises out of the maintenance or use of aircraft, autos or watercraft to the extent not subject to [the auto exclusion]. The United policy provides primary insurance unless the underlying loss fits into one of the enumerated categories under which the insurance is deemed excess. Subparts (b)(1) and (2) do not apply, because, even if the Continental policy was other insurance it is not coverage for Sovde's work, nor is it fire insurance. Subpart (b)(3) does not apply, because the liability on the part of Gabe did not arise out of the use of autos but from nonvehicle-related negligence. Furthermore, the introductory language makes the other insurance clause applicable only if other valid and collectible insurance is available. Although Continental undertook the defense and made the initial payment to settle the claims, Gabe was required to reimburse Continental for the settlement and defense costs. This essentially leaves Gabe ultimately responsible for the claims. Consequently, Gabe is the real party in interest and there is no other valid and collectible insurance available to cover the losses actually paid by Gabe. See Balboa Ins. Co. v. Pixler Elec., Inc., 484 N.W.2d 396, 398 (Iowa App.1992) (an insured who assumes a loss to the extent of a deductible is the real party in interest). Accordingly, Gabe is entitled to full reimbursement of the defense and settlement costs from United. AFFIRMED.