The federal district court construed two competing “other insurance” provisions in the policies of two insureds sued in state court. Old Guard Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169092 (E.D. Pa. July 29, 2026).

Andrew Lasky hired Elite Level Realty, LLC to manage his apartment complex through a Residential Property Management Agreement. Under the Agreement, Lasky purchased a general liability policy from Safeco Insurance Company of America naming Elite as an additional insured. Elite held its own policy with Old Guard Insurance Company.

Tenants of the apartment sued both Lasky and Elite after they were assaulted by another tenant. Old Guard defended Elite and Safeco defended Lasky. Old Guard sued Safeco asking for a declaration that Safeco must defend and indemnify Elite in the underlying action as an additional insured under Lasky’s policy.

Safeco moved to dismiss Old Guard’s complaint. It argued the Old Guard policy provided primary coverage for Elite, and Safeco only agreed to provide excess coverage for Elite. Old Guard countered the Safeco policy provided primary coverage for Elite, and the Old Guard policy provided excess coverage.

Lasky’s policy with Safeco included an “other insurance” provision stating “[t]his insurance is excess over any other valid and collectible insurance except insurance written specifically to cover as excess over the limits of liability that apply in this policy.” Elite’s Old Guard policy was “primary except when” it is excess over “[a]ny other primary insurance available to you covering liability for damages arising out of the premises or operations, or the products and completed operations, for which you have been added as an additional insured.”

Given the policies’ language, the court found that Lasky’s Safeco policy was not “primary insurance” as the term was used in the Old Guard policy because Safeco’s plain language stated it was excess over any other policy. In contrast, the Old Guard policy’s default was primary coverage and became excess only where “other primary insurance” is available to Elite. The Safeco policy provided excess coverage over any other “valid and collectible insurance.” Because the Safeco policy’s plain language stated it provided excess coverage, it did not qualify as “other primary insurance’ under the Old Guard policy.

The court could reconcile excess clauses when it could give effect to both provisions at once. Excess clauses were mutually repugnant when one policy directly conflicted with the other. Here, the “other insurance'” provisions could be reconciled. The Old Guard policy was written as excess only over another primary policy. The Safeco policy, in contract, provided excess coverage over any “other valid and collectible insurance.” Therefore, the Old Guard policy applied and had to be exhausted by Elite before it could seek coverage under the Safeco policy.

Safeco’s motion to dismiss was granted.