Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Carriers Insurance Company v. American Policyholders’ Insurance Company

Supreme Court of Maine
404 A.2d 216 (1979)


Cummings Bros. (Cummings) entered into an agreement with Merrill's Rental Service, Inc. (Merrill's) to rent motor vehicles from Merrill's. Merrill’s agreed to provide personal-injury and property-damage insurance for its vehicles when these vehicles were being operated by Cummings’ employees. Merrill’s obtained this insurance through Carriers Insurance Company (Carriers) (plaintiff). Merrill’s policy with Carriers insured personal-injury damages up to $3,000,000 and property damages up to $500,000. Cummings also obtained $250,000 worth of liability insurance through American Policyholders’ Insurance Company (APIC) (defendant). While the agreement with Merrill’s was in effect, a Cummings employee driving a Merrill’s vehicle got into an accident with another vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle was killed, and his vehicle was damaged. A wrongful-death suit was commenced. Carriers settled that claim for $200,000 and a property-damage claim for $8,000. Before and after Carriers settled these claims, Carriers sought contribution from APIC. APIC refused. Carriers sued APIC seeking contribution. A $104,000 judgment was entered against APIC. Both the APIC and the Carriers’ policies contained “other insurance” clauses. Under Carriers’ other-insurance clause, if there was another insurance policy in effect, then the Carriers’ policy would be deemed excess insurance. Under the APIC other-insurance clause, if there was other, valid insurance in effect, the APIC insurance would be deemed excess insurance. Neither insurance policy contained language specifying if either insurance was primary or secondary. The presiding justice of the court determined that these conflicting other-insurance clauses should be disregarded. APIC appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.


The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Delahanty, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.