Court Opinion

ID: 9488473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:46:51.448971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:55.077182
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Oct. 24, 1995
PER CURIAM:
In its memorandum order, the district court specifically identified two reasons for finding that the Ranger policy provided primary coverage. Initially, the court relied on the policy language that stated the coverage was “primary for any covered auto while hired or borrowed by [Empire] and used exclusively in [Empire’s] business.” Secondly, the court based its finding on an endorsement to the policy that specifically states: “This insurance is primary and the company shall not be hable for amounts in excess of $1,000,000 for each accident.”
In Ranger’s original briefing on point of error five, the main focus was that the Gen-erali policy provided primary coverage. Ranger ended this point by briefly stating that the Ranger policy provided excess coverage, quoting the policy language (also cited by the district court), and concluding that it provided only excess coverage because the truck was not under dispatch or owned by Empire. Read liberally, this cursory statement could be construed as related to the court’s finding on the policy language. However, Ranger made no attack or argument with respect to the court’s rebanee on the endorsement which unequivocally states that the Ranger policy is primary. Accordingly, we adhere to our previous decision to leave undisturbed the district court’s holding that the Ranger policy provided primary coverage for the reason that Ranger has not “specifically challenged the basis” of the district court finding.
Moreover, if we were to address the merits of Ranger’s claim the result would be the same. Initially, the endorsement states that the policy provides primary coverage. Secondly, the policy’s only mention of excess coverage is that it is excess “for any covered auto while hired or borrowed from [Empire] by another trucker.” This situation is obviously not present in the instant case. The Ranger policy provides primary coverage.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above case is DENIED.