CALL NOW TO SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY 1-844-HAFFNER
213-514-5681

Experienced. Aggressive. Reliable. We Fight for You.

  • No Hidden Fees Involved
  • No Obligation to Continue Beyond the Case Review
  • Get All Your Legal Questions Answered
click here for a free consultation

Notable Case Results

  • $ 97,284,817.91

    Class Action
    Mortgage Broker Rest Break
  • $ 8,820,000

    Brain Injury
    Settlement
  • $ 1,480,000

    Truck Driver
    Wage Class Action

Associations

Recent Results

$ 97,284,817.91

Mortgage Broker Rest Break Class Action

$ 8,820,000

Brain Injury Settlement

$ 1,480,000

Truck Driver Wage Class Action

Touch below for a free injury consultation.

click here for a

free consultation

no fees until you get paid

A Recent California Court Of Appeals Case Demonstrates That Your Excess Policy May Have Narrower Coverage Then Your Primary Policy

Click below to share this article:

Hblogumbrella3

When consumers purchase insurance coverage, they often also purchase what is referred to as an excess policy, also sometimes referred to as umbrella or secondary policies. An excess or umbrella policy is meant to provide coverage beyond the limits of the primary policy, and is considered an extra level of protection.  A recent California case, however, demonstrates that excess coverage can be narrower than the primary coverage it is meant to supplement.

In insurance jargon, the primary coverage refers to the insurance that is on the hook immediately for a loss, i.e., the policy where “liability attaches immediatelyupon the happening of the occurrence that gives rise to liability.” (Century Surety Co. v. United Pacific Ins. Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1255 (italics in original).)  Examples of primary policies are automobile or homeowners policies.  Umbrella or excess coverage is triggered, in contrast, “’only after a predetermined amount of primary coverage has been exhausted.’” (Id.) This means that the umbrella or excess policy kicks in once the primary policy limits have exhausted, meaning paid out in full. The idea is that the umbrella or excess policy will provide insurance coverage for large or catastrophic losses, that exceed the policy limits of the primary policy.

Excess policies generally “follow form” of the underlying primary policy. A follow formexcess policy “incorporates by reference the terms and conditions of the underlying primary policy.” (Haering v. Topa Insurance Company (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 725, 734.)  This means that the excess policy terms and conditions “are the same as the terms and conditions of” the primary policy. (Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Columbia Casualty Ins. Co. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1182.)

A recent California Court of Appeal case, however, demonstrates that, even where an excess policy states it follows form to the primary policy, insurance companies can write excess policy coverage that is narrower than the primary policy. On February 3, 2016, the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, issued its opinion inHaering v. Topa Insurance Company.  In Haering, the excess policy was a follow form policy, providing that “the provisions of the immediate underlying policy are incorporated as part of this policy.”  (Haering,supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at 730.)  The excess policy, however, contained an exception where the provisions of the primary policy are “inconsistent with the provisions of this policy.”  (Id.)  Thus, the excess policy in Haering essentially stated it followed the primary policy except to the extent they are inconsistent.

The primary policy in Haering provided underinsured motorist coverage, the excess policy did not.  (Id. at 729-731.)  The Court of Appeal in Haering stated the rule that “the obligations of following form excess insurers are defined by the language of the underlying policies, except to the extent there is a conflict between the two policies, in which case . . . the wording of the excess policy will control.”  (Id. at 734.)  Haeringnoted that the excess policy did not contain a “‘broad as primary” endorsement, which would have ensured coverage under the excess policy for a loss covered by the primary policy.  (Id. at 735.)  Haering held that the excess policy was limited to third party claims, and did not cover the first party UIM claim because such coverage “would be inconsistent with that limitation.”  (Id. at 736.)

The lesson for consumers purchasing excess policies is that they must be diligent in determining whether the excess policy contains provisions inconsistent with the primary policy, which render it narrower.  If in doubt, it may be a good idea to ask the excess insurer if a “broad as primary” endorsement can be added to the excess policy, to ensure it provides just as much coverage as the primary policy.

RESULTS

$15,000,000

PROPERTY DAMAGE / BAD FAITH

$10,000,000

Bad Faith

$7,500,000

Medical Malpractice

$750,000

Bad Faith / Disability

$815,000

Wrongful Death

$1,000,000

Construction Defect
view all

INJURED ? CALL 213-514-5681

or

FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW FOR AFREE CASE REVIEW

  • NO PRESSURE
  • SPEAK WITH AN ATTORNEY
  • NO HIDDEN FEES
[]
1 Step 1
Type your name here & click nextyour full name
Phoneyour full name
Commentsmore details
0 /
Previous
Next
powered by FormCraft
All Fields Required