In the previous installment of this series, we cited the case ofKajima Construction Services, Inc. v. St. Paul fire and Marineinsurance Company, 227 Ill.App.3d 102, 879 N.E.2d 305 (2007).You may recall that in resolving the issue, the Illinois SupremeCourt concluded that the “horizontal exhaustion” doctrine appliedand that the targeted tender doctrine did not apply to excesscoverage.
In understanding the Kajima decision, it is imperativeto note that in discussing the difference between primary andexcess policies, the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between“true” excess coverage and excess coverage that might arise “bycoincidence,” where multiple primary insurance contracts appliedthe same loss.
A Necessary Distinction
Continue Reading for Free
Register and gain access to:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
