General Security Insurance v. Reliance Insurance
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
General Security Insurance Company (“General Security”), an excess insurance provider, sued both Reliance Insurance Company (“Reliance”) and Continental Insurance Company (“Continental”) for contribution after General Security paid nearly $2 million to the victim of a tractor-trailer crash. The victim, an employee of Sequoyah Trucking (“Sequoyah”), drove a rig that included a trailer Sequoyah rented from J.T. McKinney Co. (“McKinney”). General Security filed separate suits claiming that both Rebanee and Continental insured the trailer portion of the rig. On cross motions for summary judgment in both cases, the district court determined that Rebanee owed contribution while Continental did not. Both Reliance and General Security appeal the summary judgments entered against them. We affirm.
Because the parties are famihar with the facts, we restate them only as necessary to explain our decision.
I. General Security v. Reliance
Rebanee insured McKinney under a commercial general liability pobey with a $1,000,000 personal injury coverage limit. The policy covered “leasing of tractor traders for overnight road use and dry storage.”