In Denny's, Inc. v. Chicago Ins. Co. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1786, the insured had liability coverage pursuant to insurance policies in three layers. The first layer consisted of primary insurance issued by the Home Indemnity Company for $ 500,000. The second layer consisted of excess coverage with a limit of $ 10 million through Midland Insurance Company. And the third consisted of excess insurance pursuant to policies issued by Chicago Insurance Company and Comstock Insurance Company with a limit of $ 10 million each in excess of $ 10 million. The insured was subject to a personal injury lawsuit which resulted in a settlement of $ 687,500. (Id. at pp. 1788-1789.) Prior to the settlement, Midland had become insolvent, and CIGA stepped in and assumed responsibility for Midland's insuring obligations. The issue on appeal was whether CIGA was required to pay the $ 187,500 which would have been paid by Midland had it not become insolvent, or whether Chicago and Comstock were required to "drop down" and pay the amount in excess of the $ 500,000 contributed by Home Indemnity. Our Court of Appeal determined that Chicago and Comstock were not required to "drop down" and pay the amount insured by Midland: "The Chicago and Comstock policies unequivocally provide that their liability will attach only after the underlying insurer has paid or has been held liable to pay the full amount of the underlying coverage, i.e., the policy limit, and that Chicago and Comstock will then be liable to pay 'only the excess' of the underlying policy limit." (Id. at p. 1793.) Thus, the court concluded, "the language at issue here precludes an interpretation requiring Chicago and Comstock to 'drop down' to the level of the underlying insurer." (Ibid.)