ELR Citation: ELR 20179
No(s). 2007AP001868 (Wis. Jun 24, 2010)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an insurance company must defend a manufacturing company in an underlying contamination case even though the company's policy was a indemnity-only excess umbrella policy. Based on the language of the policy, the insurer had a duty to defend. Although the excess umbrella policy does not have a duty to defend provision, it does contain a follow form provision that incorporates the duty to defend found in underlying insurance policies. In addition, its duty to defend was not conditioned upon exhaustion of the underlying policies. Rather, under the terms of the "other insurance" provision, the insurer's duty to defend was triggered when the underlying insurer "denie[d] primary liability under its policy."