One way of reading the provision is that the “amount due from the other insurer” is the amount of insurance—in this case, the actual cash value, which was paid. There would be no excess amount. But another way of reading the provision is to consider the “amount due” to be the total amount of the loss—the cost of replacing the tools.

This second reading was borne out in the case of Monumental Paving and Excavating, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Assoc. Ins. Co., 176 F.3d (4th Cir. 1999). The court said, “Thus, applying standard form Exclusion (k) to the case at hand, it is clear that the Inland Marine Coverage section of the policy constituted a more specific form of insurance for the Patch Masters. The two units were there collectively scheduled as having an actual value of $75,000. Accordingly, that amount of $75,000 cannot be collected under the Blanket Policy, because it is excepted from the blanket policy under Exclusion (k). However, under the second part of that same Exclusion (k), because the blanket policy insures the personal business property in the building at replacement value, and the replacement value of the two Patch Masters purportedly exceeds $400,000, the excess over the $75,000 due under the Inland Marine part of the policy is excepted from Exclusion (k) and therefore is covered by the blanket policy.”