 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Erie Ins. Group v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.12/29/1989
e argues that the "other insurance clause" is actually an "excess" insurance provision since the two clauses, read together, provide for Erie's insurance to be void if the relevant rental insurance would be void if there is other insurance. Only in the event that the other insurance is applicable on the same basis as Erie does Erie provide pro rata coverage. Thus, the net effect of the two clauses is to provide excess coverage, not to create two separate exclusionary clauses, one excess and the other pro rata.
We agree with the court below that the two clauses in Erie's policy must be considered together, as the better rule is to interpret the provisions of a document as a whole. Liberty must assume primary coverage and Erie and Nationwide are responsible for any additional coverage on a pro rata basis. Erie's third assignment of error is well taken. Nationwide's first, second and third assignments of error are not well taken.
The trial court is reversed, in part, and affirmed, in part. Each party to this appeal shall pay one third of the court costs associated with this appeal.
Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part.
CONNORS and GLASSER, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|