The Supreme Court found that the appellate court had erred when it held that the payout limits of the underlying service agreement had been incorporated into the umbrella insurance contract because the umbrella policy did not reference the underlying service agreement, the underlying service agreement set the minimum amount of insurance to be obtained by the named insured but does not prevent the named insured from obtaining a higher level of coverage for the additional insured and finally, the umbrella carriers' interpretation would defeat the purpose of obtaining umbrella coverage as an umbrella policy is only triggered when the primary policy is exhausted.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login