Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.
1988 Minn. LEXIS 285, 1988 WL 129835, 433 N.W.2d 82 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When resolving conflicts between different types of 'other insurance' clauses, such as an 'excess' clause and a 'pro rata' clause, courts should allocate liability based on the total policy insuring intent, determined by the primary risks and function of each policy, rather than by a rigid application of the clauses' labels.
Facts:
- Jim Leitch, a high school senior, was serving as a student assistant and supervisor during a physical education class at a public school.
- Kenneth DeCent, a junior high student in the class, was bouncing a basketball against a wall while waiting for his turn to wrestle.
- The basketball got loose, and both Leitch and DeCent moved to recover it.
- In an effort to prevent DeCent from reaching the ball, Leitch grabbed him around the waist and lifted him off the ground.
- Leitch then either fell or dropped DeCent, causing DeCent to land on his head.
- As a result of the fall, DeCent suffered a broken neck and is now a quadriplegic.
- The school district was insured under a primary general liability policy with Continental Insurance and a secondary umbrella policy with Interstate Fire & Casualty Company.
- Jim Leitch was covered under his father's homeowners liability policy issued by Auto-Owners Insurance Company.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth DeCent's parents brought a lawsuit against the school district, its employees, and Jim Leitch.
- The parties reached a settlement for $810,863.
- The school's primary insurer (Continental) paid its policy limit of $500,000, and the school's umbrella insurer (Interstate) paid the remaining $310,863.
- Interstate sued Auto-Owners in a Minnesota trial court, seeking reimbursement for the amount it paid in the settlement.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners, finding Interstate's policy was 'closest to the risk.'
- Interstate (appellant) appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Auto-Owners' policy was primary and should reimburse Interstate.
- Auto-Owners (appellant) petitioned the Supreme Court of Minnesota for further review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When determining the priority of coverage between a school's umbrella insurance policy containing an 'excess' clause and a student supervisor's homeowners insurance policy containing a 'pro rata' clause for an injury occurring during a school activity, is the homeowners policy primary?
Opinions:
Majority - Yetka, Justice
No. When resolving a conflict between an umbrella policy's 'excess' clause and a homeowners policy's 'pro rata' clause, the policy whose primary function and premium structure was designed to cover the specific risk at issue is responsible for coverage. In this case, the school's umbrella policy is closer to the risk than the student's homeowners policy. The court rejected the majority rule that automatically reconciles 'excess' and 'pro rata' clauses in favor of the 'excess' clause. Instead, it followed Minnesota's approach from Integrity Mutual Insurance, which is to 'allocate respective policy coverages in light of the total policy insuring intent.' The court reasoned that Interstate's umbrella policy, sold to a school district, specifically contemplated the risk of a student being injured on school property during a school activity. Conversely, Auto-Owners' homeowners policy was not priced or designed with the primary intent of covering the insured while acting as a student supervisor in a gym class. Therefore, Interstate's policy was intended to cover this type of catastrophic loss, making it responsible for payment after the school's primary policy was exhausted.
Analysis:
This case solidifies Minnesota's unique approach to resolving conflicts between 'other insurance' clauses, prioritizing a holistic 'total policy insuring intent' analysis over the more rigid, categorical rules used in most other jurisdictions. It establishes that even a policy explicitly labeled as 'umbrella' or 'excess' can be deemed closer to the risk—and thus responsible for coverage—than another policy if its fundamental purpose was to insure against the specific event that occurred. This decision places the focus on the function and premium basis of the policies, meaning insurers in Minnesota cannot rely solely on the boilerplate language of their 'other insurance' clauses to dictate priority. The ruling requires a more nuanced, fact-specific inquiry into which policy more directly contemplated covering the specific loss.
