Case:   Highlands Ins. Co. v. Plantation Pipe Line Co.
Supreme Court of Texas
No. 14-0789, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 1056 (Nov. 20, 2015)

On November 20, 2015, the Supreme Court of Texas denied a petition for review by excess carrier Highland Insurance Company. Highlands Ins. Co. v. Plantation Pipe Line Co., No. 14-0789, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 1056 (Nov. 20, 2015). In so ruling, the decision by the Texas appellate court, discussed in a previous addition of the newsletter, holding that excess coverage attached when exhaustion of underlying policies occurred through a combination of payments by underlying insurers and the insured, was allowed to stand.

Highlands concerned a pipeline company, Plantation Pipe, that was insured under a tower of coverage, including: a primary GL policy issued by American Reinsurance Company ("American") with coverage limits of $1 million; followed by an excess policy issued by California Union Insurance Company ("Cal Union") with limits of $2 million; followed by an excess policy issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Insurance Company ("Lumbermens") with coverage of $8 million; followed by an excess policy issued by Highlands Insurance Company ("Highlands") with coverage of $10 million.

A pipeline owned by Plantation leaked, and Plantation notified each of its carriers of the claim. Each insurer denied coverage, and Plantation sued American, Cal Union and Lumbermens for breach of contract. Each insurer ultimately reached a settlement with Plantation and agreed to pay less than its respective full policy limits. Plantation continued to incur costs and notified Highlands of its mounting claim. Highland denied coverage on the basis that the underlying carriers did not exhaust their respective limits of liability.

Plantation filed suit against Highlands for breach of contract, and the trial court held in favor of Highlands, finding that the underlying carriers had not exhausted and the Highlands policy did not attach. The Court of Appeals of Texas for the Eleventh District reversed, holding that based on the language of the Highlands policy, the collective payment of the underlying insurers and Plantation, completely exhausted underlying limits of $8 million.

The Court conducted a careful review of the Highlands policy, which stated that liability attached "only after the Underlying Umbrella Insurers have paid or have been held liable to pay the full amount of their respective ultimate net loss liability." The term "ultimate net loss" was not defined in the Highlands policy, but it was defined in the Lumbermens policy, to which the Highlands policy followed form, as "all sums which the insured ... become[s] legally obligated to pay as damages, whether by reason of adjudication or settlement ..." The Court reasoned that these two provisions, read together, did not require the Highlands policy attachment point to be reached solely by the underlying insurers' payments, but that the policy language required only that the total sum of payments made (by Plantation and its insurers) reach the $8 million attachment point, which was the case.

The Court distinguished the policy language at issue in Citigroup, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 649 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2011), in which the Fifth Circuit ruled that an exhaustion provision requiring payment of policy limits by underlying insurers warranted dismissal of claims against an excess insurer where the policyholder had reached a below-limits settlement with its primary insurer. The Court noted that, "We believe that the language in the Highlands policy is unambiguous, and we see nothing that requires payment of losses solely by the insurers up to the attachment amount in the Highlands policy."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.