Courts have consistently ruled that excess insurers are not required to provide "drop-down" coverage to pay for losses sustained by policyholders in cases where (a) the primary underlying insurer is insolvent and unable to pay or (b) the policyholder itself is in bankruptcy and is unable or unwilling to pay the deductible or self-insured retention amount. Why do so many insured parties seem to have missed the message and still seek to have their excess carriers provide drop-down coverage? This article will examine the issue by looking at several cases.
Date of Authorship for this Version
insurance, drop-down coverage, bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Law
Austin, Daniel A., "Drop down? Drop dead! Excess insurers not required to provide primary coverage in lieu of an insolvent insurer" (2005). School of Law Faculty Publications. 91.