Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
October 29, 2024
Who’s on First & in What Percentage

Application of Diverse “Other Insurance” Clauses
Insurers Protected Insured and Litigated Their Differences

Post 4920

Two insurance companies- Gemini and Zurich- asked the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal to determine what share of a $2 million settlement each is required to pay. The district court entered judgment for Gemini, ordering that Zurich pay $500,000 plus prejudgment interest. Both parties appealed, with Gemini seeking another $500,000 and Zurich challenging the award of prejudgment interest.

In Gemini Insurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 22-13495, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 23, 2024) the competing “other insurance clauses” were resolved.
FACTS

After the death of Josue Vallejo, who was struck by a tractor-trailer operated by an employee of FSR Trucking, Inc two of three insurers disputed what proportion of the settlement each should pay. Zurich insured FSR, through its coverage of Commercial, for $1 million. Gemini also insured FSR for $3 million.

The Vallejo claim settled for $3 million, of which Gemini contributed $2 million. Ryder’s insurance company, which is not a party to this appeal, contributed the other $1 million. Gemini and Zurich agree that they each owe a share of the $2 million, but dispute how much each one must pay. Under Gemini’s theory, they each owe $1 million. Under Zurich’s theory, they each owe their pro rata share, which is $500,000 for Zurich and $1.5 million for Gemini.

The different theories of coverage turn on the application of the two policies’ “other insurance” clauses, which generally function to apportion coverage when there is overlapping insurance. Gemini argues that its policy is excess to Zurich’s, while Zurich argues that the policies attach at the same level and thus trigger pro rata contribution.

Gemini sued Zurich for a declaratory judgment in its favor and an award of $1 million plus interest under claims of contractual subrogation or equitable subrogation/contribution. Zurich tendered $500,000 to Gemini to satisfy its pro rata share. Gemini, however, continued to litigate for the other $500,000 plus interest on the entire amount.

Gemini appealed the District Court’s ruling in favor of Zurich and sought to obtain the other $500,000.

ANALYSIS

In Florida, where more than one insurer’s policy provides coverage for a loss, as the parties agree is the case here, it is appropriate to review the insurance contracts to see if the documents address the ‘ranking’ or contribution of other insurers.
The Other Insurance Clauses

Gemini’s “other insurance” clause provides: “This insurance is excess over and shall not contribute with any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis. This condition will not apply to insurance specifically written as excess over this policy.”

Zurich’s “other insurance” clause is slightly different. “When this Coverage Form and any other Coverage Form or policy covers on the same basis, either excess or primary, we will pay only our share. Our share is the proportion that the Limit of Insurance of our Coverage Form bears to the total of the limits of all the Coverage Forms and policies covering on the same basis.

Interpretation of the “Other Insurance” Clauses

Where two insurance policies contain excess insurance clauses the clauses are deemed mutually repugnant and both insurers become primary and share the loss on a pro rata basis in accordance with their policy limits. Zurich argued, and the district court agreed, that both policies contain excess clauses such as pro rata contribution results.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Gemini because when two policies containing conflicting “other insurance” or excess [uninsured/underinsured motorist] clauses.

In sum an “other insurance” clause containing the phrase “we will pay the proportion of damages payable as excess” means that the clause was pro rata, even though it also characterized itself as an excess clause. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit concluded both policies were primary.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment with regard to the amount of contribution and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Gemini for the principal amount of $1,000,000, with the understanding that Zurich has already paid half of that sum. Upon entry of the amended final judgment on remand, Gemini will be the prevailing party. When a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff’s out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded for the court to enter judgment in favor of Gemini in the principal amount of $1,000,000 understanding that Zurich has already paid $500,000. It also affirmed the award of prejudgment interest on the first $500,000 and direct the court to award Gemini prejudgment interest on the second $500,000 from February 7, 2019, until the date of the amended final judgment.

ZALMA OPINION

The three insurers of the defendant did the right thing by protecting the insured and then resolving their dispute over the share owed in court. Although insurance companies, generally, should not sue each other. “Other Insurance” clauses invariably raise disputes between insurers and often cause hardship to the insured. In this case Gemini, Zurich and an unnamed insurer put up the $3 million to settle and then Gemini and Zurich sued to clarify who owed what. The Eleventh Circuit found that the District Court was wrong because interpreting the competing “other insurance” clauses should have resulted in a finding that both Gemini and Zurich were primary insurers and each owed $1 million of the settlement and Zurich owed Gemini $500,000 plus interest.

(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

00:09:41
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
15 hours ago
It is not Nice to Lie to Your Insurer

Material Misrepresentation on Application Defense to Claim
Post 5058

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/d9ruJnGa and at https://lnkd.in/dPbGSpK7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.

Lies on Application for Insurance Eliminates Coverage for a Claim

Magna Tyres USA, LLC appealed the summary judgment in favor of Coface North America Insurance Company and against its complaint of breach of contract and request for a declaratory judgment. In Magna Tyres USA, LLC v. Coface North America Insurance Company, No. 24-13036, the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (April 10, 2025) determined the effect of a material misrepresentation on an application for insurance.

FACTS

Magna Tyres USA, an affiliate of Magna Tyres Group, obtained coverage under Coface’s international credit insurance policy to cover the credit it extended to its customers.

Coface’s agent completed and submitted the insurance application to underwriting before returning it to Magna Tyres USA for signature. He wrote ...

00:09:12
April 24, 2025
Conviction of Health Insurance Fraud Sustained

Double Jeopardy Claims Fails Because There was no Second Prosecution for the Same Offense

Post 5057

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/dHta_-yp and at https://lnkd.in/ddck47wm and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.

Posted on April 24, 2025 by Barry Zalma

Tariq M. Abdulaziz was charged with larceny in the first degree by defrauding a public community, health insurance fraud, and failure to appear. The charges of larceny and health insurance fraud were tried to the court, and Abdulaziz was found guilty of health insurance fraud.

In State Of Connecticut v. Tariq M. Abdulaziz, No. AC 45916, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (April 8, 2025) the Court of Appeals found that Abdulaziz had submitted false claims for face-to-face services to the Department of Social Services’ Medicaid program while he was in Texas.

The trial court acquitted him of larceny in the first degree due to the state’s failure to prove the value of the wrongfully obtained property exceeded $2000 and the court found him guilty of...

00:07:03
April 23, 2025
Pro se Litigants are Presumed to Have Knowledge of the Law

Res Judicata Eliminates Second Suit
Post 5056

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gfeiyYgX and at https://lnkd.in/gwH87tHz, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.

Final Judgment Prohibits a Second Try

JC Robinson, Jr. (“JC”), pro se, appealed the trial court’s summary judgment decision in favor of defendant-appellee, Progressive Insurance Corporation (“Progressive”). In JC Robinson, Jr., et al. v. Progressive, 2025-Ohio-1370, No. 114348, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (April 17, 2025) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute.

FACTS

In May 2024, JC sued Progressive on behalf of himself and his minor daughter, E.R., (collectively “the Robinsons”). JC claimed that the Robinsons were involved in a “hit-and-skip,” rear-end, motor vehicle accident in November 2023 (“the MVA”) resulting in property damage, physical and mental injuries, medical expenses, lost income, and loss of enjoyment of life. JC claimed that the Robinsons’ presented to an emergency room after ...

00:09:17
April 18, 2025
When a Plaintiff in an Insurance Bad Faith Case Seeks Punitive Damages The Plaintiff and Counsel Must Consider the Effect of State and Federal Income Taxes

Punitive Damages Must Be Added to Gross Income for Tax Purposes

See the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/punitive-damages-must-added-gross-income-tax-purposes-barry-n08yc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus subscribe at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe.

This blog post is just a taste of the full article that is only available to subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling. Anyone can subscribe to “Excellence in Claims Handling” at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe for only $5 a month or $50 a year.

A TASTE OF EXCELLENCE IN CLAIMS HANDLING

The stated purpose of punitive damages is to punish a wrongdoer civilly to deter the wrongdoer and others from acting wrongfully. Insurance Bad Faith litigants dream of large punitive damage awards as a bonus and revenge upon the insurer that did not treat them fairly.

Punitive damages may be awarded where there is substantial harm and where there is none. [Restatement (First) of Torts § 908 cmt. c (Am. L. Inst. 1939); see also ...

post photo preview
March 13, 2025

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/duties-liabilities-insurance-brokers-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mmpbc, if you Subscribe to “Excellence in Claims Handling” at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe for only $5 a month or $50 a year.

Duties and Liabilities of Insurance Brokers

Posted on March 12, 2025 by Barry Zalma

Excellence in Claims Handling

This blog post is just a taste of the full article that is only available to subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling. Anyone can subscribe to “Excellence in Claims Handling” at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe for only $5 a month or $50 a year.

Cases in which insurance brokers’ liability is in question depend in part on whether brokers are seen to be serving a fiduciary role or simply acting as a conduit between the insured and the insurer.

A person or an entity is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent:

he exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan ...

post photo preview
March 12, 2025

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/duties-liabilities-insurance-brokers-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mmpbc, if you Subscribe to “Excellence in Claims Handling” at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe for only $5 a month or $50 a year.

Duties and Liabilities of Insurance Brokers

Posted on March 12, 2025 by Barry Zalma

Excellence in Claims Handling

This blog post is just a taste of the full article that is only available to subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling. Anyone can subscribe to “Excellence in Claims Handling” at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe for only $5 a month or $50 a year.

Cases in which insurance brokers’ liability is in question depend in part on whether brokers are seen to be serving a fiduciary role or simply acting as a conduit between the insured and the insurer.

A person or an entity is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent:

he exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals