Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Central Mutual Insurance Co.

Employee of a sub-subcontractor was injured on home construction site. Although electrical subcontractor was contractually required to maintain insurance coverage for its subcontractors as additional insured, subcontractor agreement did not specify that additional coverage be primary or excess. Insurer for sub-subcontractor was entitled to judgment as a matter of law that it is an excess insurer only and that it is not estopped from asserting policy defenses to coverage. Condition precedent language in policy is pivotal in determining which insurer is primary and which is excess, and the two policies are compatible primary and excess policies. (GORDON and PALMER, concurring.)