top of page


NJ Appellate Court Tackles Other Insurance Clauses.

May 22, 2009

Share to:

In the case of <i>W9/PHC, et al. v. Farm Family Casualty</i>, plaintiffs owned Gateway Business Park in Mount Laurel, NJ. A slip and fall accident occurred at the Property and W9/PHC blamed Crabtree Landscaping &amp; Turf Management, the snow and ice removal contractor. As a result, W9/PHC tendered its defense and indemnity to Farm Family, Crabtree’s insurer. W9/PHC alleges that it was an additional insured under the Farm Family policy. While Farm Family was forced to accept that W9/PHC was an additional insured, Farm Family argued that the coverage afforded by the Farm Family policy was excess to the coverage afforded by Zurich, W9/PHC’s primary insurer. The trial court disagreed and held that the Farm Family and Zurich policies were co-insurance.
Farm Family appealed. On appeal it argued that because the Zurich policy called for "pro rata" payment, while the Farm Family policy called for “excess” payment, the Farm Family policy was excess and not co-insurance. The appellate court agreed and reversed the trial court.
Special thanks to Sheila Osei who contributed to this posting.
<a href=""></a>


bottom of page