expect to incur liability in excess of the SIR amount. Ger-ling’s election not to exercise its right to offer Dorsey a defense left Dorsey to its own devices and thus free to agree to any reasonable, noneollusive consent judgment. The distinction between the rejection of a duty to defend and the rejection of a right to offer a defense is not, under the facts of this case, sufficient to effect a release for Gerling. See Red Giant Oil Co. v. Lawlor, 528 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 1995), and Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 547 So.2d 148 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989)(both holding that an agreement to proceed only against available insurance proceeds is not a release of the insurer). F. Gerling’s Argument Concerning “Proper lusia Ready Mix[, Inc.], 436 So.2d 868, 871 [(Ala.1983)](<HOLDING>); Truitt Oil & Gas Co. v. Ranger Ins. Co., [231
holding that unintended damage to a pipeline caused by the defective coating supplied by insureds subsidiary was caused by an occurrence within the meaning of the liability policy holding that an insurer has no obligation to pay diminished value in addition to repairs holding that an insurer was obligated to pay for damages and a loss in value to a water treatment plant caused by the insureds defective product holding that insureds demand to insurer was liquidated when insurer did not point to any evidence at trial in support of its contention that damages were disputed holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control