Opinion ID: 1801724
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Holding

Text: As noted, under former subdivision (b), if a leased commercial vehicle is involved in an accident with one or more vehicles, and the insured owner of that vehicle is engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles without operators, the insured's policy is conclusively presumed to be excess to any other insurance covering the loss. The district court acknowledged the two semitrailers leased to Justice by JTI qualified as commercial vehicles under former subdivision (b), but nonetheless concluded JTI was not engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles without operators within the meaning of former subdivision (b), and on that basis ruled that the statute's conclusive presumption did not apply to make Fidelity's coverage for JTI excess to the coverage under Justice's John Deere/Sentry policy, which named JTI as an additional insured. [3] JTI's insurer Fidelity appealed. The Ninth Circuit thereafter issued its order requesting this court to answer the question of statutory interpretation regarding the language of former subdivision (b).