dissenting.

I would accept jurisdiction in this ease. Based on the facts set forth in its opinion, I believe the court below erroneously characterized the respondent as an excess insurer rather than as a primary insurer. Because both parties were primary insurers, the decision below was in direct conflict with Continental Casualty Co. v. United Pacific Insurance Co., 637 So.2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Illinois Insurance Exchange v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 679 So.2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), based upon conflict jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. After hearing oral argument, we conclude that jurisdiction was improvidently granted and accordingly dismiss the petition.

It is so ordered.