The court found that the excess carrier had grounds to challenge the primary carrier's allocation of a settlement payment. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39771 (9th Cir Dec. 18, 2020).

    in the underlying case, Underwriters settled on behalf of the insured law

    In another round of litigation involving coverage issues between Montrose Chemical Corporation and its insurers, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Montrose, adopting vertical exhaustion of excess policies. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Calif. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 Ca. 5th 215 (2020).

    In 1990

    Citing the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 135 Haw. 449, 353 P.3d 991 (2015), the California Court of Appeal determined that the excess carrier could pursue an equitable subrogation action alleging that the primary insurers' unreasonable failure to settle within policy limits