This action was filed by appellees (holders of an insurance policy) against the insurance company (appellant) to recover for loss of personal property contained in appellees' home. The policy was a so-called Home Owners Policy.

Appellees’ property was insured in part on an unspecified peril basis by another carrier.

There is, in the policy here in question, an “excess” provision providing for excess insurance over any other valid and collectible insurance. Appellees, who recovered from the other insurer for the property that was stolen, called on appellant for such excess loss. Appellant declined to pay and, on cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court held that the loss was covered by the “excess” provision.

We find no error.

Affirmed.