Continental Volvo, Inc. v. Ross, 4014--I
| Decision Date | 11 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 4014--I,4014--I |
| Parties | CONTINENTAL VOLVO, INC., a Washington Corporation et al., Respondents, v. Leon J. ROSS et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Murray, Dunham & Waitt, Matt Murray, Seattle, for appellants.
Leo A. Anderson, Kenneth L. LeMaster, Thomas G. Richards, Seattle, for respondents.
This is a controversy between Safeco Insurance Company of America and Insurance Management Underwriters of Federated American Insurance Company over responsibility for liability insurance coverage. The question arose when Leon J. and Sally Ross, who had purchased but not received delivery of a new car from Continental Volvo, Inc., were involved in an accident while driving a temporary substitute vehicle furnished by Continental Volvo. The Rosses' policy of insurance with Federated American contained the following provision:
Other Insurance--Coverages A, B, C, D, E and F. If the insured has other insurance against a loss covered by this policy, the company shall not be liable under this policy and the insured agrees that this policy is excess over any other valid and collectible insurance and that this policy not apply until such other insurance has been exhausted.
Continental Volvo was covered by Safeco's blanket liability garage insurance which, as to customer use of its vehicles, provided:
In consideration of the reduced rate of premium made applicable to the Garage Liability Insurance, it is agreed that garage customers are not insureds with the respect to the automobile hazard except in accordance with the following additional provisions:
1. If there is other valid and collectible insurance, whether primary, excess or contingent, available to the garage customer and the limits of such insurance are sufficient to pay damages up to the amount of the applicable financial responsibility limit, no damages are collectible under this policy.
The resolution of the problem of coverage when the 'other insurance' clauses of two insurance policies come into play has been a vexatious one. The difficulties have been definitively explained in Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 444 S.W.2d 583 (Tex.1969) and will not be gone into here.
The relationship between the parties to an insurance contract is a personal one. The intention of the insurer and the insured control the coverage provided, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kent, 85 Wash.2d 942, 540 P.2d 1383 (1975), and, as with other written contracts, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landreth v. Reed
... ... In Walgreen, Inc. v. Knatt, 506 S.W.2d 751 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1974, no ... ...
- State v. McCarter
-
Greer v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co.
...to be determined from the language of the contract "viewed against the setting in which it is formed." Continental Volvo, Inc. v. Ross, 17 Wash.App. 316, 317-18, 562 P.2d 1002 (1977); see Morrison v. Anchor Cas. Co., 53 Wash.2d 707, 336 P.2d 869 Exclusion 17 when read together with the prov......
-
SAFECO OF ILLINOIS v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB INS.
...Co. of Wash. v. Miller, 87 Wash.2d 70, 73, 549 P.2d 9 (1976). 29. Farmers, 87 Wash.2d at 73, 549 P.2d 9; Continental Volvo, Inc. v. Ross, 17 Wash.App. 316, 317-18, 562 P.2d 1002 (1977). 30. Diaz v. Nat'l Car Rental Systems, Inc., 143 Wash.2d 57, 67, 17 P.3d 603 (2001). 31. 100 Idaho 123, 59......