Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Drop Down? Drop Dead! Excess Insurers Not Required To Provide Primary Coverage In Lieu Of An Insolvent Insurer, Daniel Austin
Drop Down? Drop Dead! Excess Insurers Not Required To Provide Primary Coverage In Lieu Of An Insolvent Insurer, Daniel Austin
Daniel A. Austin
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.
For Debtor Or Worse: Discharge Of Marital Debt Obligations Under The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention And Consumer Protection Act Of 2005, Daniel Austin
For Debtor Or Worse: Discharge Of Marital Debt Obligations Under The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention And Consumer Protection Act Of 2005, Daniel Austin
Daniel A. Austin
Part I examines the intersection between divorce and bankruptcy in contemporary American society, providing an overview of divorce demographics and an introduction to the bankruptcy process. Part II offers a pre- and post-Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) comparison of the Bankruptcy Code sections governing divorce obligations and discharge under the Bankruptcy Code. Part III reviews how courts in the future are likely to do so under the BAPCPA revisions. Part IV joins together existing rules and approaches to the new BAPCPA language to determine how courts will apply the BAPCPA marital discharge provisions to future cases. Part …