Mutually Repugnant Other Insurance Clauses
Post 4956
Frequently, an incident occurs which may be covered by policies issued by separate insurance companies. In such a situation, each company, through its policy, may attempt to make the other company primarily responsible for insuring the incident with its own coverage being secondarily responsible, i.e., excess insurance. In this case, the issue involves interpreting the conflicting “other insurance” provisions between Motorists Mutual Insurance Company (“Motorists”) and First Specialty Insurance Corporation (“First Specialty”).
In Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. First Specialty Insurance Corp., No. 2023-SC-0239-DG, Supreme Court of Kentucky (December 19, 2024) the Supreme Court of Kentucky interpreted the application of two other insurance clauses.
FACTS
Although the “other insurance” provisions differ somewhat, the Supreme Court concluded that they are indistinguishable in meaning and intent. If the clauses being mutually repugnant and therefore of no effect and since these provisions are mutually repugnant excess clauses.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The underlying dispute between the parties arose from the tragic death of a five-year-old child after he was struck by an Alltrade employee, Tanzilla, as Tanzilla was driving his vehicle at an apartment complex owned by Whispering Brook Acquisitions LLC.
Alltrade was party to a Service Agreement with Whispering Brook in which Whispering Brook retained Alltrade to perform work around the apartment complex. That Service Agreement called for Whispering Brook to indemnify and hold harmless Alltrade for all liability on account of the management of the property.
Alltrade was insured under a commercial general liability policy with Motorists and Whispering Brook was insured under a commercial general liability policy with First Specialty. Both insurance contracts contained “other insurance” provisions.
Following the accident, the child’s family brought a wrongful death suit against Whispering Brook and Alltrade.
The trial court first determined that Alltrade and its employees were insureds under First Specialty’s policy. The court then held that Motorists’ and First Specialty’s “other insurance” provisions were mutually repugnant excess clauses. The trial court granted summary judgment for Motorists ruling that the companies share primary liability for the loss and were required to contribute equal shares.
Ultimately, the underlying case was settled with the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that First Specialty’s “other insurance” provision was a nonstandard escape clause because the language was virtually identical to the nonstandard escape clause identified in Empire Fire &Marine Insurance Co. v. Haddix, 927 S.W.2d 843 (Ky. App. 1996).
ANALYSIS
The dispute between the parties at the trial court involved two primary issues: 1) whether Alltrade and its employees were covered under First Specialty’s policy; and 2) if so, what were the respective liabilities of the insurance companies. First Specialty’s coverage for the Service Agreement and the liability for bodily injury were subject to the same “other insurance” provision at issue in this case.
The Supreme Court concluded that both Motorists’ and First Specialty’s policies provide for excess coverage and are mutually repugnant. The Trial Court rightly determined the First Specialty policy does not include an escape clause. Accordingly, First Specialty shares equal liability to defend and indemnify Alltrade, Tanzilla and Key.
Excess Clauses v. Escape Clauses.
Excess clauses and escape clauses have different purposes. An excess clause limits liability and provides that the insurer will pay for a loss but only after any primary coverage available from another insurer has been exhausted. A standard escape clause denies liability if other valid and collectible insurance is available to the insured. A nonstandard escape clause is different from an escape clause because it denies liability if other insurance is available but also specifies that this other insurance may be either primary or excess.
When both policies have mutually repugnant excess clauses, neither one of them takes effect and the two insurers share the costs to defend and indemnify their insureds.
Motorists’ and First Specialty’s “other insurance” provisions are virtually the same.
Since Motorists’ and First Specialty’s “other insurance” provisions are mutually repugnant excess clauses, the loss between the insurers must be apportioned. Given the identical limits of liability and the co-primary coverage for both parties, the best apportionment method is for Motorists and First Specialty to contribute equal shares to defend and indemnify Alltrade, Tanzilla, and Key.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ opinion holding that First Specialty’s “other insurance” provision was a nonstandard escape clause and hold First Specialty’s and Motorists’ “other insurance” provisions are mutually repugnant excess clauses. Motorists and First Specialty are to contribute equal shares to defend and indemnify Alltrade, Tanzilla, and Key.
ZALMA OPINION
Another case proving that insurers, as professional litigators, should never litigate with other insurers but should, by negotiation, mediation, or discussion among equals, to avoid litigation, trial, appeal to the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Instead of all the time, labor, expense and argument to three different courts, it would have been less expensive and in the best interest of the insureds, to agree to defending those insured and resolve the plaintiff’s suit for wrongful death. Only the lawyers for the insurers profited from this litigation.
(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
Convicted Criminal Seeks to Compel Receiver to Protect his Assets
Post number 5291
See the video at and at and at https://www.zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
The Work of a Court Appointed Receiver is Constitutionally Protected
In Simon Semaan et al. v. Robert P. Mosier et al., G064385, California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division (February 6, 2026) the Court of Appeals applied the California anti-SLAPP statute which protects defendants from meritless lawsuits arising from constitutionally protected activities, including those performed in official capacities. The court also considered the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, which shields court-appointed receivers from liability for discretionary acts performed within their official duties.
Facts
In September 2021, the State of California filed felony charges against Simon Semaan, alleging violations of Insurance Code section 11760(a) for making...
When There are Two Different Other Insurance Clauses They Eliminate Each Other and Both Insurers Owe Indemnity Equally
Post number 5289
In Great West Casualty Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co., and Conserv FS, Inc., and Timothy A. Brennan, as Administrator of the Estate of Pat- rick J. Brennan, deceased, Nos. 24-1258, 24-1259, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (February 11, 2026) the USCA was required to resolve a dispute that arose when a tractor-trailer operated by Robert D. Fisher (agent of Deerpass Farms Trucking, LLC-II) was involved in a side-impact collision with an SUV driven by Patrick J. Brennan, resulting in Brennan’s death.
Facts
Deerpass Trucking, an interstate motor carrier, leased the tractor from Deerpass Farms Services, LLC, and hauled cargo for Conserv FS, Inc. under a trailer interchange agreement. The tractor was insured by Great West Casualty Company with a $1 million policy limit, while the trailer was insured by Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company with a $2 million ...
Opiod Producer Seeks Indemnity from CGL Insurers
Post number 5288
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/guNhStN2, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gYqkk-n3 and at https://lnkd.in/g8U3ehuc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurers Exclude Damages Due to Insured’s Products
In Matthew Dundon, As The Trustee Of The Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 24-4221, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (February 10, 2026) Matthew Dundon, trustee of the Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust, sued multiple commercial general liability (CGL) insurers for coverage of opioid-related litigation involving Endo International PLC a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
KEY FACTS
Beginning as early as 2014, thousands of opioid suits were filed by governments, third parties, and individuals alleging harms tied to opioid manufacturing and marketing.
Bankruptcy & Settlements
Endo filed Chapter 11 in August 2022; before bankruptcy it ...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lost the ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah. Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and wonder how did all these wonderful things come into being. Jews believe the force we call G_d created the entire universe and everything in it. Jews feel G_d is all seeing and knowing and although we can’t see Him, He is everywhere and in everyone.We understand...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/passover-americans-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-5vgkc.
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lostthe ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah.
Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and ...
You Get What You Pay For – Less Coverage Means Lower Premium
Post number 5275
Posted on January 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
When Experts for Both Sides Agree That Two Causes Concur to Cause a Wall to Collapse Exclusion Applies
In Lido Hospitality, Inc. v. AIX Specialty Insurance Company, No. 1-24-1465, 2026 IL App (1st) 241465-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois (January 27, 2026) resolved the effect of an anti-concurrent cause exclusion to a loss with more than one cause.
Facts and Background
Lido Hospitality, Inc. operates the Lido Motel in Franklin Park, Illinois. In November 2020, a windstorm caused one of the motel’s brick veneer walls to collapse. At the time, Lido was insured under a policy issued by AIX Specialty Insurance Company which provided coverage for windstorm damage. However, the policy contained an exclusion for any loss or damage directly or indirectly resulting from ...
