
    1 OhioSt.(2d) 105.
    Motorists Mutual Ins. Co., Appellant v. The Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co., Appellee.
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    (No. 38655
    Decided March 3, 1965.)
    
      Sebastian, Fais <b- Durst, of Columbus, and Arthur Sebastian, of counsel, for appellant.
    
      Hamilton & Kramer, of Columbus, and Don Hamilton, of counsel, for appellee.
   Brown, J.

This action is for a judgment declaring coverages under two standard automobile insurance policies, one issued by Motorists Mutual Insurance Company to Walter J. Braun, the other issued by The Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company to Joan Bailey.

On October 31, 1959, while both policies were in effect, Braun injured a third person while driving Bailey’s car with her permission. It is admitted that under standard clauses contained in each of these policies, both policies cover the claim of the [106] injured person. The question to be answered is whether the coverage of either is as to the excess only or whether under the policies it is the duty of the two companies involved to prorate any loss for which Braun is liable. Each policy states that under certain circumstances its coverage is “excess” to other valid and collectible insurance.

The Motorists policy states that the insurance afforded by the policy with respect to “any other automobile” when driven by the named insured “shall be excess insurance over any other valid and collectible insurance available to the insured or owner of such other automobile.” Since Braun was driving an “other automobile” this excess provision is effective if Bailey’s policy is “other valid and collectible insurance.”

The Lumbermens policy provides that, with respect to the “owned automobile,” a person driving with the permission of the named insured is an “insured,” and that other insurance available to the insured with respect to a nonowned automobile shall be excess over any other valid and collectible insurance, and defines a “nonowned” automobile as an automobile “not owned by or furnished for the regular use of either the named insured or any relative * * Since Bailey’s automobile, driven by Braun at the time of the accident, did not fall into this “nonowned” category by policy terms, the excess provision of Lumbermens policy does not apply. Thus, insurance under Lumbermens policy is valid and collectible insurance available to Braun.

Briefly stated, when the two insurance policies are properly read, Lumbermens’ excess clause does not apply to this case, and there is no conflict with the excess clause appearing in the Motorists policy which clearly does apply.  