itself is invalid. In any event, GenCorp’s concerns are largely unfounded. Parties can protect themselves from unwanted modifications— through contract. Notice and right to cancel provisions, as well as provisions preventing post-loss endorsements, for example, can protect excess insurers from assuming unwanted risks arising from endorsements. In fact, many of the policies at issue co Ga. App. 58, 85 S.E.2d 40, 49 (1954) (“A party cannot take advantage of his own default in the performance of a contract. The provision of the contract sought to be invoked by the defendant, insofar as it related to a breach by him, was for the benefit of the plaintiff, and he cannot be heard to plead his own breach as a defense....”); Cussler v. Firemen’s Ins. Co., 194 Minn. 325, 260 N.W. 353, 356 (1935) (<HOLDING>). As the Excess Insurers point out, any notice
holding that a defendant should not profit from his own outburst holding insurer did not have to cover insured for a breach of contract because it was not an accident holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer holding that law will not permit insured to profit from his own breach of contract when insured disregarded his contractual obligation to cooperate with insurer