Mid-Continent Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 236 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. 2007) dealt with a dispute between one primary liability insurer, Mid-Continent, and another primary insurer, Liberty Mutual, which also provided the excess insurance policy applicable to the claim against their common insured. 236 S.W.3d at 768. Each of the primary policies provided $ 1 million in coverage, and the excess policy provided $ 10 million in coverage. Id. In response to a reasonable offer to settle the claim for $ 1.5 million, Liberty Mutual sought a proportionate contribution from Mid-Continent. Mid-Continent unreasonably valued the case at $ 300,000 and agreed to contribute only $ 150,000. Id. Liberty Mutual funded the rest of the $ 1.5 million settlement and then instituted proceedings in federal court to obtain contribution from Mid-Continent. Id. On certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the supreme court rejected any right of reimbursement under G.A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. Am. Indem. Co., 15 S.W.2d 544, 547 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1929, holding approved) for Liberty Mutual's payment to settle the case in excess of its policy limits. See id. at 776. The supreme court explained that "Mid-Continent did not breach a Stowers duty to the insured because the claimants did not make a settlement offer within Mid-Continent's policy limits." Id. While the $ 1.5 settlement demand in Mid-Continent exceeded the value of each primary policy, it came within the limits of the total primary coverage available, as well as the aggregate available under the primary and excess policies provided by Liberty Mutual. Mid-Continent thus stands for the proposition that, in a claim involving multiple policies, a settlement demand does not activate one primary insurer's Stowers duty unless the demand falls within the applicable limits available under that single policy. See id. In Mid-Continent Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., two primary liability carriers, Liberty Mutual and Mid-Continent, provided $ 1,000,000 each in liability coverage for a claim against their common insured. Id. at 769. Both insurance policies had an "other insurance" clause, which limits the insurers liability in the event other insurance covers the same loss. Id. The two insurers cooperatively provided a defense for the insured, but differed in their opinions regarding the settlement value of the case. Id. at 770. Liberty Mutual, who also carried excess coverage for the insured, agreed to settle the case for $ 1,500,000 and demanded that Mid-Continent pay half that amount. Id. Mid-Continent, however, having determined that the case was only worth $ 300,000, contributed only $ 150,000 toward settlement. Id. Liberty Mutual paid the balance of the settlement and then sued Mid-Continent to recover the amount it had paid over its pro rata share, asserting claims for contribution and subrogation. Id. The Texas Supreme Court rejected Liberty Mutual's contribution claim, citing its earlier decision in Traders & General Insurance Co. v. Hicks Rubber Co., 140 Tex. 586, 169 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. 1943), which held that the existence of an "other insurance" clause in the policy precludes a claim for contribution asserted by one co-insurer against another. The court stated: "The effect of the "other insurance" clause precludes a direct claim for contribution among insurers because the clause makes the contracts several and independent of each other. With independent contractual obligations, the co-insurers do not meet the common obligation requirement of a contribution claim--each co-insurer contractually agreed with the insured to pay only its pro rata share of a covered loss; the co-insurers did not contractually agree to pay each other's pro rata share." (Mid-Continent, 236 S.W.3d at 772.) Thus, the supreme court held that when co-primary insurance policies contain "other insurance" clauses, "a co-insurer paying more than its proportionate share cannot recover the excess from the other co-insurers" through contribution. Id. In Mid-Continent Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a general contractor was the named insured on two insurance policies issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Mid-Continent, 236 S.W.3d at 769. One provided $1 million of primary liability coverage, and the other provided $10 million of excess coverage. Id. The contractor also was an additional insured on a subcontractor's $1 million primary policy issued by Mid-Continent Insurance Company. Id. Both of the primary insurance policies contained the following other-insurance clause: 4. Other Insurance. If other valid and collectible insurance is available to the insured for a loss we cover . . . , our obligations are limited as follows: a. Primary Insurance If this insurance is primary our obligations are not affected unless any of the other insurance is also primary. Then, we will share with all that other insurance by the method described in c. below. . . . c. Method of Sharing If all of the other insurance permits contribution by equal shares, . . . each insurer contributes equal amounts until it has paid its applicable limit of insurance or none of the loss remains, whichever comes first. If any of the other insurance does not permit contribution by equal shares, we will contribute by limits. Under this method, each insurer's share is based on the ratio of its applicable limit of insurance to the total applicable limits of insurance of all insurers. Id. Both insurers acknowledged their obligation to defend and indemnify the insured, and they agreed that a jury verdict against the insured would be in the range of $2 to $3 million. Id. at 769-70. Liberty Mutual believed that a jury would find the insured to be sixty percent liable, but Mid-Continent anticipated a fault finding of only ten percent. Id. at 770. Liberty Mutual agreed to settle the case for $1.5 million3 and demanded that Mid-Continent pay half, but Mid-Continent refused to pay more than $150,000. Id. Liberty Mutual paid for the remainder of the settlement using the $1 million limits from the primary policy and $350,000 of the coverage afforded under its excess policy. Id. Liberty Mutual then sued Mid-Continent to recover the amount by which Liberty Mutual's payment exceeded its share of the settlement. Id. In its opinion, the Supreme Court of Texas addressed subrogation and contribution in the context of claims between liability insurers. The court explained that when asserting a subrogation claim, "the insurer stands in the shoes of the insured, obtaining only those rights held by the insured against a third party, subject to any defenses held by the third party against the insured." Id. at 774. Although this is true of both contractual and equitable subrogation, the two are slightly different. Contractual subrogation is created by policy language in which the insurer, in exchange for payment of the loss, receives the insured's rights against the third party who was primarily liable for the payment. Id. Because the insurer pursuing a subrogation claim is exercising its insured's rights, the third party may assert any defenses to the claim just as if the insured brought the claim directly. Id. But, an insured's right to indemnification under a liability policy extends no further than the amount of the loss. Id. at 775. Because the insured's right of indemnity under a liability policy is limited to the actual amount of the loss, an insured that has been fully indemnified by one of its insurers has no right to an additional recovery from another of its insurers. See id. at 775. And because it had been fully indemnified for its loss, the court held that the insured in Mid-Continent had no claim against the non-paying insurer, and thus, there was no claim to which Liberty Mutual could be contractually subrogated. Id. at 775. Unlike contractual subrogation, equitable subrogation is not dependent on the terms of the policy, but instead "arises in every instance in which one person, not acting voluntarily, has paid a debt for which another was primarily liable and which in equity should have been paid by the latter." Id. at 774. The court explained in Mid-Continent that as a result of the pro rata clauses, each primary insurer agreed to pay only its proportionate share of a loss. Mid-Continent, 236 S.W.3d at 772. Under these circumstances, a "co-insurer paying more than its contractually agreed upon proportionate share does so voluntarily; that is, without a legal obligation to do so." Id. Liberty Mutual had no obligation under the policy's terms to pay more than its pro rata share of the loss; thus, it could not recover in equitable subrogation because it was unable to show that it had not acted voluntarily. See id. at 774-75.