State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. General Mut. Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding excess clauses were “mutually repugnant” and loss should be apportioned between insurers
• affirming trial court’s award of prejudgment interest in contribution action, with interest due from date plaintiff insurance company made settlement payment
• two carriers with mutually repugnant \other insurance\ provisions must contribute in proportion to their respective limits of liability
• whatever equitable rights a partner may have in a vehicle licensed to the partnership, he is not the owner of the vehicle within the meaning of an automobile liability policy
• where two insurance policies covering the same risk contain excess-insurance clauses, the clauses are mutually repugnant and the loss should be apportioned between the two insurers on a prorata basis
• where two insurance policies covering the same risk contain excess-insurance clauses, the clauses are mutually repugnant and the loss should be apportioned between the two insurers on a pro rata basis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).