Court Opinion

ID: 9629895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:52:04.004246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:26.166558
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing: After the foregoing opinion was filed, defendant Home Insurance filed a request for clarification.
Lampron, J.
We treat the request for clarification filed by defendant Home Insurance as a motion for rehearing. The opinion dated January 31, 1976, is modified by adding the following at the end of part III:
“As both policies afford primary coverage, Liberty Mutual and Home Insurance have a joint obligation to defend Richard Lavigne and to share equally the costs of defense. First Ins. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 466 F.2d 807, 811 (9th Cir. 1972); American Mut. Liab. Co. v. Milwaukee Ins. Co., 283 Ala. 414, 218 So. 2d 129, 133-34 (1969); see Case v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 105 N.H. 422, 427, 201 A.2d 897, 900-01 (1964). Furthermore, each insurer is obligated to pay a pro rata share of any resulting judgment based upon the limits of coverage noted above. 16 C.J. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law *19§§ 62.32-62.33 (1966, Supp. 1975); Annot., 21 A.L.R.2d 611 (1952 & Later Case Service).”

Motion for rehearing denied; opinion modified.

February 27, 1976.