shift would not be inequitable. In short, there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the General Star and Hartford insurance policies. Any of several interpretations is reasonable; no interpretation is completely satisfactory. Under California law, courts generally resolve ambiguities in favor of coverage for the insured. See, e.g., Montrose Chemical Corp. of Cal. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 10 Cal.4th 645, 667, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 913 P.2d 878 (1995); AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 807, 822, 274 Cal.Rptr. 820, 799 P.2d 1253 (1990). Therefore, the Court must interpret the General Star policy to find that for purposes of the “other insurance” clauses, World Oil does not have “other insurance.” See Cargill, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 889 F.2d 174, 180-81 (8th Cir.l989) (<HOLDING>). This interpretation provides World Oil with
holding insurance agent has no duty to advise insured of amount of insurance necessary to cover all potential losses holding that a policy with an excess other insurance clause provides no coverage until a policy with a pro rata other insurance clause is exhausted holding that the amount necessary to repair a vehicle under an insurance contract refers to the amount the insurer must spend to repair the vehicle not the amount the insured decides to spend holding that up to the amount of the deductible there was no other insurance holding that the obligee may recover attorney fees as an element of damages only up to the limit of the penal amount of the bond