A WIN/WIN/WIN SLOUTION An excess carrier retained GRSLL&B to act as monitoring counsel in a serious motor vehicle accident. The insured's truck struck plaintiff's vehicle in the rear causing severe injuries to multiple occupants, several of whom were ejected from the vehicle. One occupant, after being ejected and while lying in the roadway, was struck and killed by an unidentified third vehicle which left the scene. The plaintiff asserted the standard causes of action against the driver and trucking company but also asserted claims against the manufacturer of the vehicle for product defects alleged to have contributed to and exacerbated the extent of injuries. The excess carrier felt that, because of the extent of the injuries and the clear liability, the full limits of the primary policy as well as the excess policy would likely be exposed. It also was clear that the primary policy limits would be exhausted. Separate counsel represented decedent's estate and the remaining occupants. All claims were submitted voluntarily to mediation. During the mediation, counsel for the estate made demands that clearly indicated that the death claim could not be resolved at mediation. However, GRSL&L was able to resolve the occupants' claims at mediation with the manufacturer paying nearly two-thirds of the settlement and with the trucking company's contribution within primary limits. As a result, the primary carrier continued to defend the death claim, but made the remaining portion of its policy available to the excess carrier. GRSLLB then began negotiations with counsel for the estate. Plaintiff's counsel indicated that he was not in a position to settle unilaterally with the trucking company and proceed against the manufacturer because, if the settlement with the trucking company was less than full value of the wrongful death and survivor's claim and if plaintiff lost the case against the remaining defendant (the manufacturer), the estate would receive less than the full value of the claim notwithstanding that the estate should receive full compensation from all defendants. A trial of the matter, however, could conceivably expose the trucking company to excess liability. GRSL&L devised a creative settlement approach which protected plaintiff, the trucking company, and the excess carrier. The proposal was a variation on a high-low agreement. The trucking company, through the excess carrier (our client), would pay a settlement amount immediately (the "low"- which was significantly less than full value of the claim) and agree that, if the plaintiff tried the case against the manufacturer and lost, the trucking company would pay an additional amount (the "high") which would bring the total payment up to the full value to the estate (yet still under the total available insurance coverage). This enabled the plaintiff to proceed against the manufacturer without the risk of ultimately obtaining less than a full recovery for his client, and eliminated any excess exposure to our client (the carrier) and its insured. It was a win/win/win proposal for the carrier, the trucking company and the plaintiff, which made it an offer the plaintiff just couldn't refuse. After some negotiations over the numbers, the concept was accepted and the case against the trucking company was settled. Plaintiff ultimately settled with the vehicle manufacturer, so no additional payment needed to be made. The net result was that the excess carrier paid less than one-third of its available coverage on a case which initially was thought might well consume its entire policy limits.