In Aerojet-General, Corp. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. (Sept. 2007, Cal. Court of Appeal) the court recently held that an excess insurer was not required to fund payment of a voluntary settlement amount that exceeded the insured's primary and other excess policy coverage.  The policy in part required indemnity payment for "damages."  The court held that the voluntary settlement amount did not constitute "damages" because the settlement was a voluntary agreement, whereas "damages" arise following a court order, such as after trial and an adjudication.  It appears also that the insured did not first obtain the settlement consent of the insurer.  Of course, the insurer would not necessarily consent to settlement if it believed that the policy language provided coverage only following judgment.  On a related insurance coverage issue involving D&O insurance coverage, see also, In re CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Houston Casualty Co., et al. (March 2007, MD Fl).