Abstract
This Note analyzes the excess insurance policy provisions reviewed by courts in determining whether drop down obligations exist when an underlying insurer is insolvent. A comparison of cases interpreting virtually identical policy language and producing contrary holdings shows that the inconsistencies result from the reviewing courts' application of the traditional rules of insurance policy construction in an inappropriate context. This Note then examines the arguments both for and against imposing drop down obligations on excess insurers and concludes that, in the context of these cases, the traditional canons of insurance policy construction should not apply. Finally, this Note proposes a means by which excess carriers may reduce the risk of assuming drop down obligations.
How to Cite
33 Ariz. L. Rev. 239 (1991)
2
Views
2
Downloads