Court Opinion

ID: 9680647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:35:43.000233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.854884
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In our original opinion we stated that, “The interest of Industrial is merely to prescribe the period over which such payments should be made.” Appellant directs our attention to the policy issued by Pan American which provides that the amount of premiums paid by Industrial are offset by refunds based on its loss experience under the policy from which Industrial concludes, “Thus Industrial’s right to designate the period over which benefit payments should be paid is one which is valuable to it, and one which should not be lightly regarded. Indeed, because Industrial’s loss experience determines its future premiums, it has an equally real, direct interest in resisting liability under the policy if it deems such action appropriate.”
We find nothing unique in the provision of the policy that rates are affected by losses. All insurance rates are affected by losses.
Even though the interest of appellant in the suit brought by appellee is greater than stated in our original opinion, we hold that it lacks sufficient identity with the interest of Pan American to come within the rule which we quoted from Hans-berry v. Lee. The substantial interests of Pan American and Industrial are not necessarily or even probably the same.
Appellant in its motion for rehearing states, “We agree with the Court that the doctrine of virtual representation is inapplicable here * * * ”
The motion is overruled.