United States: An Insurer's Excess Of Policy Limits Challenges, Options, And Considerations

Last Updated: August 1 2017
Article by Elise D. Allen

Insurers often face excess of policy limit considerations in three key scenarios:

  1. Does an insurer face excess of policy limits exposure when it has the option to use its limits to settle some (but not all) insureds?
  2. Does an insurer face excess of policy limits exposure when it makes a good faith decision not to settle within limits, but the resulting verdict is above the limits?
  3. Does an insurer face excess of policy limits exposure when it makes a good faith decision not to defend an insured, but the decision is later proven in litigation to have been incorrect?

This article explores these three excess of policy limits situations, problematic jurisdictions, and options insurers should consider in order to guard against excess of policy limits exposure.

  1. Excess of Policy Limits Considerations When There are Multiple Insureds, but the Insurer can only Settle as to One Insured

The recent case of National Surety Corp. v. First Specialty Ins. Corp., No. L-3983-16, 2016 WL 7057503, (N.J. Super. L., Nov. 18, 2016), litigated by BatesCarey, provides an exemplar where the court accepted the insurer's argument that it could use its limits to settle out only one of its two insureds—contrary the objections of the second insured.

In National Surety, the insurer proposed settling claims against one of the insureds for its $2 million policy limits, releasing that one insured from the underlying lawsuit but not extinguishing the claims against its other insureds. The National Surety court ruled that once the insurer exhausted its policy limits in settling the claims against one of its insureds, the insurer's obligations under the policy concluded and the insured's duty to defend all of its insured ends upon exhaustion of its policy by way of settlement with the one insured.

In so ruling, New Jersey adopted the majority rule that where the potential liability facing co-insureds exceeds the available limits of insurance, the insurer is permitted to use its best judgment to effectuate a settlement, even if that means settling out some insureds and not others, without fear of an adverse action. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 628 N.E.2d 499 (Ill. Ct. App. 1993) (holding that insurers acted in good faith and in the best interest of their insureds when settling out two of the insureds, but not all three). The rationale is that by settling and releasing some of the insureds, the total amount of liability in the underlying action will be decreased, which is a benefit to all of the insureds. Anglo-American Ins. Co. v. Molin, 670 A.2d 194 (Com. Ct. Pa. 1995)(holding that an insurer should not be precluded from accepting a settlement offer for less than all insureds); see also Elliott Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 434 F.Supp.2d 483 (N.D. Ohio 2006) (holding that an insurer can settle or pay claims in good faith to one insured, even if this results in actual exhaustion of the policy limits to the detriment of another insured).

Despite the fact that the majority rule continues to be favorable to insurers, there are still states that prohibit an insurer from settling claims against some, but not all, insureds. See Smoral v. Hanover Ins. Co., 37 A.D.2d 23 (App. Div. 1971) (holding an insurer "cannot prefer one of its insureds over another" with respect to settlement); Lehto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 31 Cal. App.4th 60 (Ct. App. 1994), as modified (Jan. 13, 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 820 (1995) (holding that the auto insurer did not act in bad faith when it refused to accept a settlement offer releasing claims against only one insured, where claims against co-insureds remained pending).

  1. Excess of Policy Limits Considerations When an Insured Makes a Good Faith Decision Not to Settle Within Limits

What if an insurer receives a demand within policy limits, but the defense counsel and common sense both dictate that the settlement value is less the demand? A rationale insurer would likely reject the demand. What then if the verdict ultimately comes in much higher than the policy limit? Can the insurer still be on the risk for judgments in excess of policy limits? In short, maybe, depending on the jurisdiction.

Several jurisdictions adhere to the well-reasoned conclusion that an insurer is not liable in excess of policy limits when it fails to settle a claim, absent evidence of bad faith conduct. See Carford v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. CV065001946, 2012 WL 4040337 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2012) (finding the insurer did not act in bad faith when it refused to settle the claim within policy limits, and therefore was not liable for any award in excess of those policy limits); Ambassador Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 690 P.2d 1022 (N.M. 1984) (holding that in the absence of a finding of bad faith, an insurer cannot be held liable for negligent failure to settle); Smith v. Audubon Ins. Co., 679 So.2d 372 (La. 1996) (holding where an insurer is in control of the defense, absent any bad faith conduct, the insurer is free to settle or litigate at its own discretion without concern of risking liability in excess of policy limits); Olson v. Union Fire Ins. Co., 118 N.W.2d 318 (Neb. 1982) (if the insurer "has exercised good faith in all of its dealings under the policy" then the insurer will not be subject to liability in excess of policy limits).

However, a problematic minority of jurisdictions hold insurers liable for judgments in excess of policy limits where an insurer fails to settle a claim against its insured, even if the insurer did not act in bad faith. Asermely v. Allstate Insurance Co., 728 A.2d 461 (R.I. 1999) (holding that if an insurer fails to settle a case within policy limits, it assumes the risk of miscalculation of judgment, regardless of its good faith belief it has a legitimate defense for coverage, should the judgment exceed policy limits); Andrew v. Century Co., 134 F. Supp.3d 1249 (D. Nev. 2015) (determining that, even though the insurer was found not to have committed bad faith, its wrongful refusal to defend the insured under the policy breached the contract of insurance, and therefore the insurer was responsible for any consequential damages, including those that exceeded policy limits).

The safest course for insurers facing the possibility of an unreasonable and unlikely judgment that may exceed policy limits is to encourage and allow the insured to retain personal counsel at its own expense to monitor this possibility.

  1. Excess of Policy Limits Considerations When an Insured Declines to Defend and Is Later Proven Wrong

The majority rule is that insurers making good faith decisions on the duty to defend are generally shielded from facing risks of liability in excess of policy limits in the event the insurer is later proven to be wrong. See Bannister v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 692 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2012)(key questions as to whether denial was in bad faith denial are whether insured's denial was based on a good faith reason at time of denial and whether insurer conducted a reasonable investigation to determine the validity of the claim); Brockmann v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Shawnee, 404 Fed. Appx. 271 (10th Cir. 2010)(holding that insured's denial of defense could not be characterized as bad faith when insured expressed its willingness to reevaluate upon receipt of additional information, which it ultimately did). Of course, when in doubt, the best protection for an insured is always to file a declaratory judgment action.

Nevertheless, a minority of states indicate that a wrongful failure to defend, even in good faith, could expose an insurer to payment in excess of policy limits. Race City Fasteners, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of S.C., No. 5:05-CV-9-V, 2007 WL 1340404 (W.D.N.C. May 3, 2007), aff'd sub nom. Race City Fasteners, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of S.C., 279 F. Appx. 250 (4th Cir. 2008)(holding that insurer must pay for default judgment entered against insured when insurer declined coverage and rejected insured's argument that even if there is a breach of the duty to defend, such breach does not create more coverage than the insured paid for); Andrew v. Century Sur. Co., 134 F. Supp. 3d 1249 (D. Nev. 2015) ("[t]here is no special rule for insurers that caps their liability at the policy limits for a breach of the duty to defend").

Therefore, it is imperative for an insurer to be cognizant of the majority and minority rules and the problematic jurisdictions when determining whether to settle for less than all insureds, refuse a settlement demand, or elect to deny a duty to defend, even based on a good faith analysis.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions