A

We do not believe that there is a potential for stacking. If mobile equipment is considered an auto for coverage under an auto policy, that equipment should be considered an auto under the CGL form also, especially if the insurer is the same for both coverages. As such, the CGL form would exclude coverage for any BI or PD because the equipment is an auto.

However, even if that were not the case, and a court were to say the equipment is an auto under the auto policy and mobile equipment under the CGL form, the other insurance clauses on the insured's policies would prevent stacking. Both the auto policy and the CGL form have other insurance clauses and both say basically the same thing: the policies both offer primary coverage; both coverages are valid; and both have methods of sharing the coverage under those circumstances, be it pro-rata or equal amounts. So, we believe that any coverage would be shared by the policies if both policies were forced to provide coverage.