Opinion ID: 2467790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: commercial union insurance company of new york policy

Text: Commercial Union issued its policy to R. H. Mooney and Associates, Inc. for a term of one year commencing May 1, 1968. It included both comprehensive general liability and comprehensive automobile liability endorsements. We are concerned only with the latter. Both Mooney and Rinderknecht claimed to be insureds entitled to coverage under this policy. Commercial Union concedes that Mooney, the named insured, is covered and the trial court so found. That determination is not in issue on this appeal. With reference to Rinderknecht, the trial court found that he was not insured under the Commercial Union insurance policy and was not entitled to coverage thereunder. Rinderknecht, the Thomassens, and certain other appellants attack that determination on this appeal. The pertinent policy provisions which specify the persons insured by the policy provide as follows: Each of the following is an insured under this insurance to the extent set forth below: (a) the named insured; (b) any partner or executive officer thereof, but with respect to a non-owned automobile only while such automobile is being used in the business of the named insured; (c) any other person while using an owned automobile or a hired automobile with the permission of the named insured, provided his actual operation or (if he is not operating) his other actual use thereof is within the scope of such permission, but with respect to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the loading or unloading thereof, such other person shall be an insured only if he is: (1) a lessee or borrower of the automobile, or (2) an employee of the named insured or of such lessee or borrower; (d) any other person or organization but only with respect to his or its liability because of acts or omissions of an insured under (a), (b) or (c) above. There is no contention that Rinderknecht is entitled to coverage under (a), (b) or (d) above. The assertion of a right to coverage is based on the provisions of subparagraph (c) which provides coverage for any other person provided he is using an owned automobile or a hired automobile with permission of the named insured. The definition section of the automobile liability endorsement defines those terms as follows: `hired automobile' means an automobile not owned by the named insured which is used under contract in behalf of, or loaned to, the named insured, provided such automobile is not owned by or registered in the name of (a) a partner or executive officer of the named insured or (b) an employee or agent of the named insured who is granted an operating allowance of any sort for the use of such automobile;       `owned automobile' means an automobile owned by the named insured; There is no contention that Mooney owned the 1964 Chevrolet driven by Rinderknecht. However, some of the appellants contend that it was a hired automobile and that Rinderknecht is covered for that reason. The trial court found that Commercial Union did not cover Rinderknecht. It did so on the basis that he received a $100 per month allowance from Mooney for use of his automobile and that this excluded him as an insured under the express language of (b) of the definition of hired automobiles. As we have pointed out, there is no evidence in the record on appeal to show that Rinderknecht did receive such an allowance and we cannot exclude him on that basis. However, the fact remains that there is no evidence to show that the automobile he was driving was a hired automobile. There is no evidence in the record of any contract or agreement or hiring arrangement whereby Mooney rented or hired the Chevrolet. Hence, Rinderknecht does not qualify as an insured under subparagraph (c) of the section of the policy specifying persons insured. On this basis we affirm the holding of the trial court that the Commercial Union policy does not provide coverage for Rinderknecht. Finally, having determined that both the National Indemnity and the Commercial Union policies provide coverage for Mooney, we note that both policies contain provisions undertaking to make such coverage excess over any other insurance available to the insured. Under the case of Arditi v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 315 S.W.2d 736 (Mo.1958) we hold said provisions to be mutually repugnant and, consequently, hold that the two insurers provide primary coverage, liability under their coverages to be prorated in proportion to the amount of insurance provided by their respective policies. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the views herein expressed. All of the Judges concur.