Court Opinion

ID: 9656456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:48:34.82296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.457486
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court. Home Indemnity, as insur*49er for Columbia, must have been aware of Columbia’s contract with the school district which required Columbia to keep in force a liability policy naming the school district as an additional insured. During the contract period, the parties agreed that Columbia did not obtain a certificate naming the school district as an additional insured, but would have had the school district requested it. Home Indemnity presumably would not have increased Columbia’s premium to provide such an endorsement.
Both Columbia, which has a number of contracts to transport school children throughout the metropolitan area, and Home Indemnity were sophisticated enough to be aware that Columbia had contracts with a number of other school districts obligating Columbia to provide them with additional insured coverages. Moreover, it is difficult for me to see how Columbia was entitled to any indemnity against the school district if, in fact, it had breached its contract to provide the very insurance coverage that it now denies that it provided.
It appears, therefore, that this case is covered by Julien v. Spring Lake Park Agency, Inc., 283 Minn. 101, 166 N.W.2d 355 (1969). Because it is apparent that Home Indemnity was aware of Columbia’s contractual obligations and continued to insure Columbia, Home Indemnity should be deemed to have accepted the school district as an additional insured. Therefore, I would hold that Home Indemnity was the primary insurer in this case and affirm the trial court.