A.R. Wilfley & Sons — Colorado high court says excess insurer need not cover insolvent primary carrier’s obligations

Case
A.R. Wilfley & Sons, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA; Federal Insurance Company; and United States Fire Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Colorado
Judge
Justice Samour
Date Decided
September 21, 2026
Docket No.
25SA265
Topics
Insurance coverage; Excess insurance; Insurer insolvency; Duty to defend
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

A.R. Wilfley & Sons has faced asbestos bodily-injury suits arising from its industrial pumps. Its primary coverage included policies issued by Reliance Insurance Company, a scheduled underlying insurer under Federal Insurance Company’s umbrella/excess policies. Reliance became insolvent, making its policy benefits uncollectible.

Wilfley tendered the asbestos actions to Federal and argued that Reliance’s insolvency made the actions “not covered” by Reliance’s policies, obligating Federal to provide first-dollar defense and indemnity. In the ensuing federal action, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado certified that Colorado-law question to the state supreme court.

The Court’s Holding

The Colorado Supreme Court answered no. Under the unambiguous Federal policies, “not covered” concerns whether an occurrence falls outside the scope of coverage supplied by scheduled underlying insurance; it does not mean that coverage is uncollectible because the scheduled insurer is insolvent.

The policies separately used “collectible” in addressing other, unscheduled underlying insurance and required Wilfley to maintain its scheduled underlying insurance. Because the asbestos actions were assumed to be within Reliance’s policy coverage and Reliance’s limits were not assumed exhausted, Federal had no obligation to drop down and furnish first-dollar defense costs or indemnity. The court overruled Deisch & Marion, P.C. v. International Insurance Co. to the extent it conflicted with that conclusion.

Key Takeaways

  • A scheduled primary insurer’s insolvency does not convert a covered occurrence into one “not covered” by the primary policy.
  • An umbrella/excess carrier does not become a guarantor of a scheduled underlying insurer’s solvency absent policy language requiring that result.
  • “Covered” and “collectible” must be given their distinct meanings when the policy text uses them in different contexts.

Why It Matters

The decision establishes that, under this policy language, insureds bear the risk that a scheduled primary insurer becomes insolvent unless their excess or umbrella policy expressly reallocates that risk. Excess insurers remain responsible for risks outside the scheduled primary policy’s scope or losses that reach the applicable attachment point, but not for replacing an insolvent scheduled carrier.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top