Transcontinental Ins. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pa.
This appeal concerns an insurance coverage dispute between an excess insurer and a primary insurer over the obligation to defend a housing developer in a construction defect case. The court determined the excess insurer, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ISOP), had an obligation to pay the developers defense costs. ISOP asserts other carriers providing coverage for several subcontractors, and which named the developer as an additional insured, had the duty to provide defense coverage. It asserts the California rule of horizontal exhaustion required the payment from these primary policies before any excess or umbrella policies could be triggered. Court conclude the trial court got it right. The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on Transcontinental Ins. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pa.