explaining that “the burden imposed on each insurer is generally proportional to the benefit which he received, since the size of the premium is most always directly related to the size of the policy”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “the burden imposed on each insurer is generally proportional to the benefit which he received, since the size of the premium is most always directly related to the size of the policy”
- explaining that pro rata contribution “can easily be justified on an unjust enrichment basis”
- identifying, as the “controlling principle: when there is a loss which should be shared, the respective shares will be determined by considering the benefits which accrued to the contributors”
- irreconcilable “other insurance” clauses, regardless of nature of clause, were repugnant and each was rejected in toto
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON REHEARING
*130 Helm & Neely, La Grande, Minnick & Halmer and James B. Mitchell, Walla Walla, Washington, and Rhoten, Rhoten & Speerstra, Salem, for the respondents.
Fabre, Collins & Kottkamp, Pendleton, for the appellant.