In Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Oak Builders, Inc., 2007 WL 1584224 (Ill.App. 1 Dist.), a construction company appealed the decision of the lower court , which had ruled in favor of the construction company's liability insurer and granted summary judgment that the policy provided excess coverage only.

 The appeal of the ruling concerned a dispute over the interpretation of “other insurance” clauses contained in the two insurance polices issued to the construction company by two different insurers. One policy was issued to the construction company pursuant to a commercial general liability policy and the other was issued to the construction company pursuant to an “additional insured endorsement.”

 The construction company contended that both policies provided “primary” coverage and that the “excess” other insurance clauses in the two policies were mutually repugnant. Therefore, according to the construction company, the two insurers should share the cost of defending and indemnifying the action brought by the injured employee.