Harleysville Insurance Companies v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the priority of coverage among a vehicle owner's personal auto policy, a personal blanket excess policy, and a driver's mother's personal auto policy. It held that the owner's Pennland policy provided primary coverage, the Harleysville blanket excess policy provided the next tier of coverage, and the Aetna policy was excess to both. Because the Harleysville policy limits were sufficient to satisfy the underlying claim, Aetna was not required to contribute to the settlement or defense costs.

Holdings

1. Under the plain language of the policies, Pennland's policy occupied the first tier of coverage, Harleysville's policy occupied the second tier, and Aetna's policy occupied the third tier. Harleysville's policy had to be exhausted before Aetna's policy was implicated.
2. Harleysville and Aetna were not required to share liability, indemnity, defense fees, or costs because Aetna's coverage was excess to Harleysville's coverage and the Harleysville policy limits were sufficient to satisfy the underlying claim.
3. A court may not rely solely on the general nature or design of an insurance policy to determine priority when the policy's specific other-insurance language is clear.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the driver's personal automobile policy issued by Aetna provided coverage excess to the vehicle owner's personal blanket excess policy issued by Harleysville.
2. Whether the Superior Court disregarded the distinction between primary and excess insurance policies by placing Harleysville's policy in the second tier of coverage and Aetna's policy in the third tier.
3. Whether Harleysville and Aetna were required to share liability, indemnity, defense fees, and costs as insurers providing excess coverage.

Disposition

affirmed