context: A number of courts have declined to grant stay relief to one claimant where, as here, the available insurance coverage was inadequate to compensate other similarly situated claimants.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 837 F.2d 325, 330
citation_a.parenthetical: in many cases, "[allowing one claimant to collect the policy proceeds in a state court judgment would deplete the insurance pool to the detriment of all remaining creditors"
citation_a.sentence: See also In re Titan Energy, Inc., 837 F.2d 325, 330 (8th Cir.1988) (in many cases, “[allowing one claimant to collect the policy proceeds in a state court judgment would deplete the insurance pool to the detriment of all remaining creditors”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 117 B.R. 406, 410
citation_b.parenthetical: stay motion denied because insurance was not adequate to pay all claims
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Matter of Gatke Corp., 117 B.R. 406, 410 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1990) (stay motion denied because insurance was not adequate to pay all claims); In re Davis, 730 F.2d 176, 185 (5th Cir.1984) (affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision to keep stay in place because “intact insurance coverage [i]s a bulwark against erosion of the estate”).