Opinion ID: 667872
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Well, it isn't general liability.

Text: 56 C.R. 87, Ex. J at 7 (emphasis added). When pushed further as to whether Admiral would be off the hook regardless of what happened, Youngclaus stated, I'm not sure I can answer that. I really can't say that I would know that for sure. It would seem to me, in my opinion, that they would be off the hook. CR 87, Ex. J, at 29. 57 In summary, during his deposition Youngclaus never stated that Wausau would pay without regard to its policy limits. In fact, no one discussed policy limits during Youngclaus's deposition. Youngclaus did state that Wausau was providing coverage under Coverage B of its policy, and Coverage B of the Wausau policy clearly states that the policy limit is $100,000. Even when Youngclaus answered that Admiral might be off the hook, he clearly qualified this statement by saying that he did not know for sure and that he did not think he could answer the question. As such, it is not a representation of Wausau's position regarding the extent of its coverage. 7 58 Even if misrepresentations were made, Monaghan could not have justifiably relied on Youngclaus's deposition statements to assume Wausau would cover his claim without limit. Whether Wausau covered the claim or Admiral covered the claim should have been immaterial to Monaghan. Assuming he won a judgment, he would be paid by M & T. As long as M & T was not judgment proof either because of inadequate net worth or insurance coverage, Monaghan had no concern as to the actual source of the payment. M & T is the party that would be concerned about who indemnified it.