Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. Mid-Century Insurance Company…

Summary

The court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment holding that Shelter could not enforce a renewal-policy provision reducing permissive-driver coverage because Shelter did not clearly and specifically notify the insured of the reduction. The court also held that Shelter’s excess clause was valid because Colorado’s mandatory-insurance laws do not require the vehicle owner’s insurer to be primary, but that Shelter’s and Mid-Century’s conflicting excess clauses were mutually repugnant, making both insurers co-primary and requiring equal contribution until one policy limit was exhausted.