In Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 912, a judgment was entered against Safeway in the amount of $ 125,000. Two insurers (collectively called Commercial) had issued excess liability policies to Safeway, covering liability in excess of $ 100,000; thus, Commercial had to pay $ 25,000 of the judgment. Commercial then sued Safeway, alleging that Safeway had had an opportunity to settle the case for $ 50,000 or $ 60,000 but had negligently failed to do so. The trial court sustained a demurrer to this claim. (Id. at p. 916.) The California Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an excess policy "imposes no implied duty upon the insured to accept a settlement offer which would avoid exposing the insurer to liability. Moreover such a duty cannot be predicated upon an insured's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." (Commercial Union, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 921.) It explained: "We have no quarrel with the proposition that a duty of good faith and fair dealing in an insurance policy is a two-way street, running from the insured to his insurer as well as vice versa. However, what that duty embraces is dependent upon the nature of the bargain struck between the insurer and the insured and the legitimate expectations of the parties which arise from the contract." (Id. at p. 918.) "The object of the excess insurance policy is to provide additional resources should the insured's liability surpass a specified sum. The insured owes no duty to defend or indemnify the excess carrier; hence, the carrier can possess no reasonable expectation that the insured will accept a settlement offer as a means of 'protecting' the carrier from exposure. The protection of the insurer's pecuniary interests is simply not the object of the bargain." (Id. at p. 919.) It concluded: "If an excess carrier wishes to insulate itself from liability for an insured's failure to accept what it deems to be a reasonable settlement offer, it may do so by appropriate language in the policy." (Id. at p. 921.)