such provisions. As for undermining “the very nature of insurance,” it bears repeating that the relevant risk here is the risk the Excess Insurers and GenCorp agreed to when they consented to the “follow form” provisions. It is not disputed that there were no known losses at that time. Although, as noted, fortuitous loss is implicit in the concept of insurance, see Lee R. Russ, 7 Couch on Insurance § 102:7 (3d ed.1997); risk can exist with respect to past events, such that retroactive coverage, and noncoverage, is a permissible subject of an insurance contract. C. Notice GenCorp argues that several of the Excess Policies specifically require that the Exces cannot benefit from its own breach. See, e.g., Market Street Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v. Frey, 941 F.2d 588, 592 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) (applying Wisconsin law); Morgan v. Crowley,
recognizing that generally a nonparty to an arbitration agreement does not have standing to invoke the agreement but considering whether the nonparty could force arbitration because it was a third party beneficiary of the contract a successor in interest to the contracting party or an agent of the contracting party holding that a contracting party cannot be allowed to use his own breach to gain an advantage by impairing the rights that the contract confers on the other party holding that a fundamental breach bars assertion of any further rights under the contract by the party guilty of the breach holding that when a contract is signed by one party but not the other the manifestation of consent by the nonsigning party is sufficient to bind that party holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach