In re: C.P. Hall Co.

Bankruptcy Ct. did not err in denying motion by debtor’s excess insurer to intervene in debtor’s bankruptcy case for purposes of opposing proposed $4.125 million settlement of debtor’s claim against its primary insurer to provide coverage for $10 million in asbestos claims filed against debtor. Excess insurer failed to establish any certainty that it would benefit from any rejection of proposed settlement and further failed to show that its status as non-creditor qualified as “party in interest” under Bankruptcy Code. As such, fact that excess insurer could face collateral damage from ruling on proposed settlement was insufficient to afford it standing to oppose settlement.