April 13, 2010

A case before the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York centered on a dispute between insurers over coverage for the customer of the insured car dealership after the customer caused an accident while driving the dealership’s car. This case is Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Harco National Insurance Company, 895 N.Y.S.2d 611 (2010).

Webb borrowed a loaner from the insured car dealership (Burdick Pontiac) while his own vehicle was being repaired by the insured. Webb’s son was driving the loaner vehicle when he collided with a vehicle driven by Walker . Walker was injured and sued. The car dealership had a garage liability policy issued by Harco and the Webbs were insured under a personal auto policy with Progressive. The Harco policy contained what is known as a “no liability clause” that provided coverage to a customer of the insured only if the customer had no other available insurance, whether primary, excess, or contingent. The Progressive policy contained an “excess” clause that stated that any insurance provided for a vehicle, other than a covered vehicle, is excess over any other valid and collectible insurance.