SIMONE LATREILLE, APPELLANT,

v.

CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN COMPANY AND B.G. GROSS, M.D., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Allstate Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 711 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
  …n excess over the other. Based on this finding, the trial judge held that each policy must provide primary coverage for Hall. We agree with that portion of the trial judge’s ruling. See The Travelers Insurance Company v. Lexington Insurance Company, 478 So. 2d 363, 365 (Pla. 5th DCA 1985)(explaining that “[i]n Florida, where two insurance policies contain excess insurance clauses the clauses are deemed mutually repugnant and both insurers become primary and share the loss on a pro rata basis in accordance wit…
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Tropical Shipping & Constr. Co., Ltd., 254 F.3d 987 (11th Cir. 2001)
  …tually repugnant and both insurers share the loss on a pro rata basis in accordance with their policy limits.” Galen Health Care v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 913 F.Supp. 1525, 1530 (M.D.Fla.1996) (citing Travelers Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 478 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1985)); see also Rouse v. Greyhound Rent-A-Car, 506 F. 2d 410, 415-16 (5th Cir.1975) (in applying Florida law, holding that “the [‘other insurance’] clauses are mutually repugnant, since if both are given effect neither in…

Authorities Cited

• Valdes v. Ruas, 354 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)