Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. Westfield Ins. Co.

Dist. Ct. erred in: (1) denying plaintiff-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that it did not owe duty to defend insured-swine farm in underlying nuisance action, where plaintiff based its denial on “other insurance” provision in policy issued by plaintiff; and (2) partially granting summary judgment motions filed by two defendants-insurance companies that also issued policies covering swine farm, where said defendants sought reimbursement from plaintiff for some or all of their costs in successfully defending swine farm in underlying action. Relevant language in “other insurance” provision in plaintiff’s policy stated that plaintiff had no duty to defend insured if insurance applicable to plaintiff’s policy was excess coverage to another policy that provided coverage, and record showed that policy issued by one defendant covered loss at issue in underlying action that was also covered by plaintiff’s policy. As such, “other insurance” provision in plaintiff’s policy applied, and plaintiff was not obligated to defend insured in underlying action, and defendants could not seek pro rate share of their defense costs. Fact that plaintiff’s policy did not provide excess coverage with respect to other defendant’s policy did not require different result.