229 Cal. App. 4th 1166
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Scottsdale insured Lainez's tractor-trailer under a policy that described and rated the power unit, with attached trailer covered.
- NCI provided an excess policy for Western Transport's CAARP coverage; the policy did not describe or rate any specific vehicle.
- Lainez drove for Western Transport as an independent contractor, using his own truck and equipment, and was required to maintain liability insurance naming Western Transport as an additional insured.
- In January 2007 Lainez's tractor-trailer was involved in a fatal collision; Western Transport's wrongful death actions were filed by barcenas family members.
- NCI tendered defense to Scottsdale, which initially assumed primary coverage and defended Lainez and Western Transport; later Scottsdale sought coprimary status under Insurance Code § 11580.9.
- The trial court held Scottsdale's policy was primary and NCI's policy excess under subdivision (d) of § 11580.9; the issue on appeal concerns the proper interpretation of (d) vs (h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which subdivision controls when two policies cover the same motor vehicle? | Scottsdale argues (h) controls, but the court should apply (d). | NCI argues (d) is superseded by (h) in tractor-trailer contexts and both policies can be primary. | Subdivision (d) applies; Scottsdale primary, NCI excess. |
| Whether Scottsdale's policy describing the power unit makes it primary under § 11580.9(d) | Policy describes the owned power unit, thus primary. | Two trucker policies complicate the priority; (h) should apply for trucker coverage. | Scottsdale primary under (d); NCI excess. |
| Whether subdivision (h) applies when both policies cover the entire tractor-trailer unit | Subdivision (h) resolves conflicts between power unit and trailer insurers; should apply. | Subdivision (d) remains more specific when both policies cover the entire rig. | Subdivision (d) is more specific here; (h) does not apply; Scottsdale primary, NCI excess. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilshire Ins. Co., Inc. v. Sentry Select Ins. Co., 124 Cal.App.4th 27 (2004) (two policies may be coprimary; context for (d) vs (h))
- Transport Indemnity Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 189 Cal.App.3d 250 (1987) (early framework for priority among concurrent policies)
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Sequoia Ins. Co., 211 Cal.App.3d 1285 (1989) (conclusive presumptions in insurance coordination)
- Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 85 Cal.App.3d 521 (1978) (describes vehicle description as a criterion for primacy)