{ "id": 11081309, "name": "USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, RAGSDALE MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and WILLIAM B. ROBERTS, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "USAA Casualty Insurance v. Universal Underwriters Insurance", "decision_date": "2000-07-05", "docket_number": "No. COA99-971", "first_page": "684", "last_page": "688", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "138 N.C. App. 684" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "447 S.E.2d 512", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "515" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 N.C. App. 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523502 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "284" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/116/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "507 S.E.2d 66", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"Integon IF" }, { "page": "67" }, { "page": "68" }, { "page": "71" }, { "page": "71" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 N.C. App. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11198835 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"Integon IF" }, { "page": "268" }, { "page": "274" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/131/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "463 S.E.2d 389", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"Integon I\"" }, { "page": "390" }, { "page": "392" }, { "page": "392" }, { "page": "392" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 796124 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"Integon I\"" }, { "page": "167" }, { "page": "170-71" }, { "page": "170" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0166-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 395, "char_count": 8162, "ocr_confidence": 0.769, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2372725205214667 }, "sha256": "042a8007d480066b71f89b98ea19927381c390973aca139766cca85187e40600", "simhash": "1:0172cc6ca59a8b75", "word_count": 1297 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:36.911228+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges LEWIS and MARTIN concur." ], "parties": [ "USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, RAGSDALE MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and WILLIAM B. ROBERTS, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WALKER, Judge.\nOn 30 December 1997, plaintiff USAA Casualty Insurance Company (\u201cUSAA\u201d) filed this declaratory judgment action against defendant Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (\u201cUniversal\u201d) to determine the responsibilities of the two insurers based on a claim arising out of an underlying vehicle accident.\nOn 22 November 1995, USAA\u2019s insured, Burke S. Lewis, was operating a vehicle owned by Universal\u2019s insured, Ragsdale Motor Company, Inc., an automobile dealership. Lewis was driving with the permission of Michael R. Ragsdale, Jr. (\u201cRagsdale\u201d), who was also in the vehicle and is the son of Ragsdale Motor Company\u2019s president. Ragsdale had been given the permanent use of the vehicle by his father.\nThe vehicle Lewis was driving struck another vehicle driven by William B. Roberts, who brought suit against Lewis, Ragsdale, and Ragsdale Motor Company. A dispute arose between USAA and Universal as to the priorities of coverage between their policies. USAA and Universal settled with Roberts for $10,500, with payment contingent upon the outcome of the declaratory judgment.\nUSAA\u2019s liability policy contains an \u201cother insurance\u201d clause which provides:\nIf there is other applicable liability insurance, we will pay only our share of the loss. Our share is the proportion that our limit of liability bears to the total of all applicable limits. However, any insurance we provide with respect to a temporary substitute vehicle or non-owned auto shall be excess over any other valid and collectible insurance.\nUSAA\u2019s policy limits were $300,000 per person injured.\nUnder Universal\u2019s liability policy, Part (4) of WHO IS AN INSURED states that an insured is:\nany other person or organization required by law to be an INSURED while using an AUTO covered by this Coverage Part within the scope of YOUR permission.\nAdditionally, COVERAGE PART 500 \u2014 GARAGE provides in part:\nWith respect to part (4) of WHO IS AN INSURED the most WE will pay in the absence of any other applicable insurance, is the minimum limits required by the Motor Vehicle Laws of North Carolina. When there is other applicable insurance, WE will pay only OUR pro rata share of such minimum limits.\nUniversal\u2019s \u201cother insurance\u201d provision provides in part:\nThe insurance afforded by this Coverage Part is primary, except:\n(2) WE will pay only OUR pro rata share of the minimum limits required by the Motor Vehicle Laws of North Carolina when:\n(a) any person or organization under part (3) or (4) of WHO IS AN INSURED is using an AUTO owned by YOU and insured under the AUTO HAZARD.\nUniversal\u2019s policy limits were $25,000 per person injured.\nBoth parties moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted Universal\u2019s motion, ordering Universal to \u201cpay pro rata as to the minimum limits or Universal is responsible for a 1/12 share\u201d of the $10,500 settlement, or $875 plus interest.\nUSAA argues the trial court erred in failing to give effect to its \u201cexcess\u201d insurance clause in determining the liability under the policies. Specifically, USAA\u2019s coverage is \u201cover and above Universal\u2019s, since Universal directly insured the vehicle\u201d involved in the accident, so that the settlement should be paid entirely by Universal\u2019s policy.\nUSAA concedes that the language in Universal\u2019s policy has been previously examined by our Supreme Court and this Court in Integon Indemnity Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 342 N.C. 166, 463 S.E.2d 389 (1995) (\u201cIntegon I\u201d), and Integon Indemnity Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 131 N.C. App. 267, 507 S.E.2d 66 (1998) (\u201cIntegon IF). In both cases, under substantially similar facts and construing identical policies of Universal, our appellate courts held that Universal was responsible for a pro rata share of the minimum limits required by North Carolina\u2019s motor vehicle laws.\nIn Integon I, an automobile dealership loaned a car to Allen and Hope Bridges (the Bridges), whose daughter subsequently was involved in a collision while operating the vehicle with her parents\u2019 permission. Integon I, 342 N.C. at 167, 463 S.E.2d at 390. The Bridges were insured by Integon and the dealership was insured by Universal. Id. Integon\u2019s \u201cother insurance\u201d provision provided that \u201cany insurance we provide for a vehicle you do not own shall be excess over any collectible insurance.\u201d Integon Indemnity Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 116 N.C. App. 279, 284, 447 S.E.2d 512, 515 (1994). Universal\u2019s \u201cother insurance\u201d provision provided that it would only pay the pro rata share of the minimum limits required by the Motor Vehicle Laws of North Carolina. Integon I, 342 N.C. at 170-71, 463 S.E.2d at 392. Our Supreme Court held that, under Universal\u2019s policy, when the driver has other applicable insurance, Universal is responsible for paying a pro rata share of the minimum limits. Id. at 170, 463 S.E.2d at 392.\nIn Integon II, Randall Baucom rented a vehicle from Griffin Motor Company, Inc., and subsequently was in a collision while operating the vehicle. Integon II, 131 N.C. App. at 268, 507 S.E.2d at 67. Baucom was insured by Integon and Griffin was insured by Universal. Id. The two policies\u2019 applicable coverage provisions were the same as in Integon I. Id. at 269, 507 S.E.2d at 68. Just as in Integon I, this Court held that, when the driver has other applicable insurance, Universal is responsible for paying a pro rata share of the minimum limits. Id. at 275, 507 S.E.2d at 71. Additionally, this Court stated that:\nwe note [Integon] has advanced no argument asserting application in the instant case of the coverage limitation in the Integon policy \u201cfor a vehicle you do not own\u201d to the \u201cexcess over any other collectible insurance.\u201d Accordingly, we have not addressed, nor do we express any opinion, as to the effect of this provision upon our analysis herein.\nId.\nHere, the applicable provisions of both policies may be given effect without yielding a mutually repugnant interpretation. Under Universal\u2019s policy, Lewis\u2019s USAA coverage is the other applicable insurance; therefore, Universal is only obligated to pay a pro rata share, or one-twelfth of $10,500. See Integon I, 342 N.C. at 170, 463 S.E.2d at 392.\nUnder USAA\u2019s \u201cexcess\u201d insurance clause, the \u201cother valid and collectible insurance\u201d is Universal\u2019s pro rata share, or one-twelfth of $10,500. Thus, USAA is obligated to pay the remainder.\nUSAA argues that Integon I and Integon II are distinguishable in that those cases involved \u201ctest drivers or rental cars,\u201d while \u201cLewis was simply a permissive user.\u201d This constitutes a distinction without a difference and USAA\u2019s argument is without merit. See Integon II, 131 N.C. App. at 274, 507 S.E.2d at 71.\nUSAA also argues that Universal\u2019s \u201cother insurance\u201d clause violates North Carolina law and public policy since the provision allows Universal to defeat the statutory requirement of providing minimum limits of coverage under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21. Based upon Integon I, USAA\u2019s argument is without merit. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for Universal.\nAffirmed.\nJudges LEWIS and MARTIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WALKER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Edgar & Paul, by Patrick M. Anders, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Leigh Ann Smith, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, RAGSDALE MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and WILLIAM B. ROBERTS, Defendants\nNo. COA99-971\n(Filed 5 July 2000)\nInsurance\u2014 automobile \u2014 excess insurance clauses\nThe trial court did not err by granting summary judgment for defendant Universal in a declaratory judgment action to determine the responsibilities of the two insurers in a claim arising from an automobile accident where both policies contained \u201cother insurance\u201d provisions. The applicable provisions of both policies may be given effect without a mutually repugnant interpretation; under Universal\u2019s policy, the plaintiff UGAA\u2019s coverage is the other applicable insurance and Universal is only obligated to pay a pro rata share.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 22 February 1999 by Judge Wiley F. Bowen in Orange County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 April 2000.\nEdgar & Paul, by Patrick M. Anders, for plaintiff-appellant.\nCranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Leigh Ann Smith, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0684-01", "first_page_order": 714, "last_page_order": 718 }