The D & O Diary : Directors and Officers Liability and Insurance : The D & O Diary : Kevin LaCroix : Securities Laws, Corporate Fraud, D & O Litigation

As I have previously noted (refer for example here), one of the most vexing issues in the D&O claims arena is the questions of whether or not two claims are or are not interrelated. If the two are interrelated, they are deemed a single claim for purposes of determining the claims made date. The outcome of this analysis often can mean the difference between the availability of coverage and non-coverage for one or both of the claims.

In a recent D&O insurance coverage dispute in the Western District of Washington, Judge Richard A. Jones wrestled with the relatedness question in the context of a qui tam claim that followed after an earlier anti-retaliation claim. Having determined that the subsequent qui tam claim “related back” to the prior anti-retaliation claim, and that the subsequent claim was deemed made at the time of the earlier claim, Judge Jones then had to determine whether the two claims were also a single claim for purposes of the application of a policy exclusion.

As discussed in his March 11, 2013 opinion (here), Judge Jones determined that the “single claim” deeming term operates only with respect to the policy’s claims made provisions, but did not operate with respect to the application of the policy’s exclusions. Judge Jones’s opinion is the subject of a May 15, 2013 memorandum from Matt Jacobs and Jan Larson of the Jenner & Block law firm (here).

Background

In April 2009, Richard Klein, the former CFO of Omeros Corporation, notified the company that he believed he had been terminated from the company in retaliation for internally reporting what he contended was the provision of falsified time records to the National Institute of Health (NIH) in connection with an NIH grant. In September 2009, Klein filed a lawsuit against Omeros alleging that he had been fired in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the False Claims Act.

Omeros submitted the anti-retaliation claim to its management liability insurer, which provided both EPL and D&O insurance to Omeros. Pursuant to a reservation of rights, the insurer defended Omeros against the Klein suit under the EPL coverage section. The insurer ultimately exhausted the $1 million limit of liability applicable to the EPL coverage in defense of the Klein claim.

In November 2010, Klein sought leave to amend his complaint to include a qui tam action on behalf of the United States, asserting that Omeros had violated the False Claims Act. Omeros submitted this amended claim to its management liability insurer. The insurer agreed to defend the amended claim, again under a reservation of rights, under the D&O liability portion of its coverage. The insurer then filed an action seeking a judicial declaration that it there is no coverage under its policy for the qui tam action. Omeros filed a counterclaim contending that the insurer had breached its duties under the policy, acted in bad faith, and violated the Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act.

The insurer moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that because Klein did not file his qui tam claim until November 2010, and because the applicable policy expired in October 2009, the qui tam action was not a claim made during the policy period, and therefore was not covered under the policy. Omeros argued, in reliance on the policy’s Related Acts provisions and definitions, that the subsequent qui tam action related back to the prior anti-retaliation claim, that the subsequent claim is deemed made at the time of the earlier claim, and as a result of the operation of these provisions is deemed a claim made during the policy period.

The relevant provisions of the Policy provide that

All Claims based upon or arising out of the same Wrongful Act or any Related Wrongful Acts or one or more series of any similar, repeated or continuous Wrongful Acts or Related Wrongful Acts, shall be considered a single Claim. Each Claim shall be deemed to be first made at the earliest of the following times:

1. when the earliest Claim arising out of such Wrongful Act or Related Wrongful Act is first made; or

2. when notice pursuant to section VII.B above [relating to notice of facts “which may be reasonably expected to give rise to a Claim”] of a fact, circumstance, or situation giving rise to such a Claim is given.

The D&O Coverage section of the Policy defines “Related Wrongful Acts” as “Wrongful Acts” that re “logically or causally connected by reason of common fact, circumstance, situation, transaction, casualty, event or decision.”

The March 11 Opinion

In his March 11, 2013 Opinion, Judge Jones held that “the qui tam claim and the anti-retaliation claim Mr. Klein raise in his initial complaint are based on related wrongful acts.” Judge Jones noted that Klein had alleged in his initial complaint and in his qui tam claim that Omeros had made false reports to the NIH, and accordingly the two claims were logically connected. The insurer had argued that there were differences between the qui tam claim and the anti-retaliation claim; for example, the former seeks recoveries for wrongs done to the United States, while the later seeks a recovery solely from wrongs done to Klein. Judge Jones said that “the policy’s test for a related wrongful act is not whether there are differences, but whether or not there is any ‘common fact, circumstance, situation event or decision’ that logically connects the acts.”

Judge Jones added that Omeros’s alleged false reporting “is a common event that logically connects the anti-retaliation and qui tam claims.” The facts underlying both claims “are common facts.” Because the facts are related within the meaning of the policy, the policy requires the insurer “to treat separate claims based on those wrongful acts as if they had been made on the date of the earlier claim.”

The insurer, Judge Jones noted, also had a “backup argument.” The insurer argued that if the policy required the two claims to be treated as a “single claim,” and because that “single claim” would have to include Klein’s original anti-retaliation claim, the following exclusion in the D&O portion of the policy was therefore triggered with respect to the qui tam claim: “The Insurer shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in connection with a Claim made against any Insured …based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from, in consequence of, or in any way involving any past, present or future actual or potential employment relationship.”

Judge Jones concluded that although the policy deems interrelated claims a single claim for purposed of determining when a claim was made, “they are not a single claim for purposed of applying policy exclusions that are unrelated to the claim-made nature of the policy.” He added that “it is reasonable to construe exclusions that have nothing to do with the claims-made nature of the policy to apply individually to separate claims, even if the separate claims are considered a single claim for purposed of determining when they were made.”

Discussion

As I have frequently noted on this site, interrelatedness issues are among the most vexing that can arise under the D&O insurance policy. However, the insurer’s argument here that the anti-retaliation and qui tam claim were unrelated and therefore separate claims was always going to be an uphill battle. It is not just the Klein asserted the qui tam claim in an amended complaint in the same lawsuit in which he had asserted the anti-retaliation claim. It is also the fact that both claims depended on a core nucleus of underlying factually allegations based on his contention that the company had falsely reporting specific information to the NIH in connection with an NIH grant.

What is more interesting about this decision is Judge Jones’s exploration of the question of what it means that separate claims are “deemed a single claim.” The insurer argued that if the separate claims are a single claim for purposes of the determining the claims made date, then they must be a single claim for purposes of determining the application of policy exclusions. The problem with this argument is that the “deemer” clause deems separate claims to be a single claim for purposes of making the claims made date determination, not for all purposes under the policy.

The easiest way to see the problem with the insurer’s argument is to consider a situation in which Klein had filed both the anti-retaliation claim and the qui tam claim in his initial complaint during the policy period. In that circumstance, Omeros would reasonably expect that the insurer would provide coverage for both of the simultaneously made claims, with coverage for the anti-retaliation claim under the EPL coverage section and coverage for the qui tam claim under the D&O coverage section. The mere fact that the were separately made but deemed a single claim for purposes of the determining the claims made date should not change the availability of coverage under the policy.

It is always an interesting question whether or not two matters will be found to be sufficiently related to be deemed a single claim. In this case, the Court was asked to determine the extent of the implications if two separate claims were deemed a single claim for purposes of determining the claims made date. As Judge Jones determined, even if the separate claims are deemed a single claim for purposes of the claims made date determinations, the single-claim clause does not govern when applying policy exclusions unrelated to the claims-made nature of the policy.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many organizations purchase management liability insurance to provide liability and defense cost protection for their directors and officers. But the management liability insurance protects the individuals only for their actions undertaken in an “insured capacity.” The policies are not intended to not protect them for actions they undertake in a capacity other than as a director or officer of the organization. These issues proved to be determinative in the action to decide whether or not D&O insurance issued to Jerry Sandusky’s organization, The Second Mile, covered the legal fees Sandusky incurred defending criminal and civil allegations involving misconduct with children.

In a March 1, 2013 Memorandum Opinion, Middle District of Pennsylvania Chief Judge Yvette Kane held that because the alleged misconduct did not arise in Sandusky’s capacity as an employee or executive of The Second Mile, the organization’s management liability insurer had no obligation to provide him defense cost coverage. A copy of Judge Kane’s opinion can be found here. As I note below, I have some concerns about this ruling.

Background

Sandusky founded The Second Mile in 1977. From 1977 until Sandusky was criminally indicted for offenses against children. Sandusky served at times as a volunteer and at times as an executive-level employee of the organization. In November 2011, a grand jury returned a report charging Sandusky with multiple crimes involving children. Following a trial, Sandusky was convicted of a total of 45 charges involving offenses against children. Sandusky has appealed his criminal conviction. Sandusky has also been named as a defendant in a separate civil proceeding brought by one of his alleged victims.

Sandusky sought coverage for the attorneys’ fees incurred in both the criminal and civil matters from The Second Mile’s management liability insurer. Sandusky sought coverage under both the D&O and EPL portions of the policy. The insurer advanced Sandusky’s defense expenses subject to a reservation of its rights under the policy and initiated an action seeking a judicial declaration that it had no obligation to fund Sandusky’s defense expenses. The insurer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that it would be against Pennsylvania public policy to indemnify Sandusky for the child molestation charges against him. As discussed here, in a June 2012 order, Judge Kane agreed that it would be against Pennsylvania public policy for the insurer to indemnify Sandusky, she reserved the question of whether it would be against public policy for the insurer to provide Sandusky with a defense.

After Sandusky’s criminal conviction, the insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the acts alleged against Sandusky were not undertaken in an insured capacity. The policy defined the term “Insured Capacity” to mean “the position or capacity of an Insured Person that causes him to meet the definition of Insured Person.” Sandusky argued that the meaning of this provision is ambiguous and the further discovery was required to determine the extent of the coverage provided under the policy. 

The March 1 Opinion

In her March 1, 2013 memorandum opinion, Judge Kane granted the carrier’s motion for summary judgment. She found the policy language regarding “Insured Capacity” to be “unambiguous.” She said that in order to determine “whether the actions that form the basis of the claims against Defendant were performed in his capacity or role as an executive or employee of The Second Mile,” she must review the allegations against him. She then reviewed the various abuse allegations that had been alleged against Sandusky. Among other things, she noted that the alleged abuse was alleged to have taken place in a variety of locations, all away from The Second Mile’s facilities.

Based on this review, she concluded that “it is clear that Defendant Sandusky was not acting in his capacity as an employee or executive of The Second Mile in sexually abusing and molesting the victims named in the criminal and civil cases brought against him, and the Court so finds.” She added that Sandusky was not alleged to have engaged in the alleged misconduct “in furtherance of his duties for The Second Mile.” She noted that the fact that Sandusky met his victims through The Second Mile or even that he sexually abused victims “during the course of activities at” The Second Mile “does not change the fact that his sexual abuse of children was personal in nature and performed in his individual capacity.” Because Sandusky’s alleged conduct “was clearly personal in nature and not in furtherance of his duties for The Second Mile, he is owed no criminal defense under the Policy.”

Discussion

The nature of these allegations is so repugnant and the fact that Sandusky has been convicted criminally makes it hard to spend any time thinking about the issues here. I certainly have no interest in defending Sandusky or trying to prove that he has not been dealt with fairly here.

Nevertheless I do have concerns about this ruling. It is easier to see my concerns if we forget about Sandusky and imagine instead that a volunteer or employee of a nonprofit organization has been unfairly targeted by abuse allegations, perhaps as a particularly vindictive part of a smear campaign. Let us say for purposes of this hypothetical that the allegations, though false, are otherwise as heinous as those against Sandusky.

My concern is that under Judge Kane’s ruling, even this falsely accused individual could not look to his origination’s management liability insurer for a defense. Her ruling does not depend on Sandusky’s conviction. She expressly says that “Sandusky’s offenses against children –whether proven or alleged – were not conduct in his capacity as an employee or executive of the Second Mile.” The allegations alone are enough to determine coverage, because “sexual abuse of children” is “personal in nature” and is “performed in individual capacity.” She even said that this conclusion would apply “even if he sexually abused victims “’during the course of activities of Second Mile.’” 

If the mere fact that allegations of sexual abuse are personal and individual is enough to preclude coverage for Sandusky, then are mere allegations sufficient to preclude coverage even for a nonprofit official who is falsely accused as part of a smear campaign? Keep in mind, Kane is not interpreting a clause of a policy in which the insurer says “we won’t insure even allegations of sexual molestation.” She was interpreting a clause that talks about the capacity in which a person was sued and for which he or she got sued. In our smear campaign hypothetical, the only reason my hypothetical smear campaign individual was targeted was because they were an official of the nonprofit. Are we prepared to say that this falsely accused individual is under no circumstances entitled to a defense, simply because of the nature of the allegations?

I would be much more comfortable all the way around with this decision if it were based on the fact that Sandusky was actually convicted. Of course, given that his criminal case is still on appeal the judgment in the criminal case is not final, and so the insurer might not be able to preclude coverage on the basis of the criminal conviction for some time yet.

When Judge Kane says that her conclusion that Sandusky was not acting in an insured capacity applies even though he allegedly abused victims “during the course of activities of Second Mile,” that’s when I get uncomfortable with this result. It would be very easy to shrug this result off because of the terrible things for which Sandusky was convicted. But because Judge Kane’s conclusion does not depend on the conviction, this same result could apply to any nonprofit official, even one who is falsely accused and would otherwise be forced to defend him or herself against outrageous allegations without insurance and at their own expense. I am very uncomfortable with this whole subject matter, but I am also not entirely comfortable with this decision.

I invite readers to weigh in on this topic, particularly those who take a different point of view on this decision than I do. (I know I am setting myself up for a raft of messages about the need for separate sexual molestation coverage or the possible problems with the bodily injury exclusion in the typical D&O insurance policy, and perhaps other similar arguments as well. Please bear in mind that my concerns here are focused exclusively on Judge Kane’s reasoning in denying coverage, not on whether there may be other questions that might affect coverage or whether there are alternative insurance arrangements that might better address the sexual molestation exposure.)

Whistleblower Watch: In my annual year-end round up of D&O insurance and liability issues, I more or less said that I thought 2013 would be the year of the whistleblower, or at least the year in which the whistleblower bounty provisions of the Dodd Frank Act kick into high gear. Well, here we are into the third month of 2013, and there still haven’t been any more whistleblower bounty awards. So was I wrong? Maybe I was, but before you decide, you need to take a look at the list that Mary Jane Wilmoth has been compiling over at the Whistleblower Protection Blog.

As Wilmoth reports, the SEC posts Notices of Covered Action when a final judgment order, by itself or with prior orders and judgments in the same action, results in monetary sanctions over $1 million. Individuals who voluntarily provided the SEC original information that led to successful enforcement in the actions identified in the Notices are eligible to apply for whistleblower awards. Once the Notices are posted, individuals have 90 days to apply for an award. The blog post lists 22 actions in which Notices have been posted. The list is complete through February 8, 2013. From looking at the dates on which the Notices have been posted, the SEC is putting up Notices regularly. The pretty clear inference is that this list is going to get a lot longer very rapidly.

Obviously not all of the Notices will lead to whistleblower bounty awards. Indeed, many will not, as there may not be a qualifying individual. But it seems highly probable that there will be some awards, perhaps many. In other words, it still seems possible that 2013 will be the year in which whistleblower bounty provisions kick into high gear. Stay tuned.

• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The modern public company D&O insurance policy provides coverage not only for the directors and officers of the company but also for the company itself – however, in the public company D&O insurance policy, the entity coverage applies only to securities claims, a limitation that sometimes leads to disputes whether or not a particular matter constitutes a securities claim.

A recent decision from the Central District of California took a look at whether the claims against a mortgage originator and securitizer involving the company’s issuance of mortgage-backed securities constituted a “Securities Claim” within the meaning of the company’s D&O insurance policy. In her February 26, 2013 order (here), Judge Josephine Tucker held that the claims were not “Securities Claims” within the meaning of the D&O policy and therefore that the insurer did not have a duty to advance defense costs.

Background

Until 2007, Impac Mortgage Holdings funded, sold and securitized residential mortgages. A unit of the company acquired mortgages that another company unit originated. The acquired mortgages were placed in a trust, which in turn issued certificates that were issued to an underwriter which then sold them to investors.

The coverage dispute relates to three separate claims that were asserted against Impac and its related entities. First, in April 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank filed a state court complaint against Impac alleging unfair and deceptive acts as well as false and misleading statement in connection with the sale of the certificates. Second, in May 2011, Citigroup filed an action in the Central District of California against Impac, alleging violations of Sections 18 and 20 of the Securities Act of 1934, as well as negligent misrepresentation in connection with the Citigroup’ s purchase of certain other certificates. Finally, in April 2010, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York sent a letter to Impac referencing a dispute concerning priority of payments under four Impac securities offerings.

Impac submitted all three of these matters to its D&O insurer, seeking to have the insurer advance defense costs for all three matters and contending that all three arose out of Impac’s mortgage-backed securities business. The insurer denied coverage for all three claims and Impac filed an action against the D&O insurer, seeking a judicial declaration that the insurers ha a duty to advance defense costs. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.

In pertinent part, the D&O insurance policy defined the term “Securities Claim” to mean a claim made against an insured:

(1) alleging a violation of any federal, state, local or foreign regulation, rule, or statute regulating securities …which is

(a) brought by any person or entity alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to the purchase or sale of or offer or solicitation of an offer to purchase or sell any securities of an Organization;

The February 26 Ruling

In her February 26, 2012 order, Judge Tucker denied Impac’s motion for summary judgment and granted the D&O insurer’s summary judgment motion.

The D&O insurer had argued that the phrase “securities of the Organization” in the policy’s definition of the term “Securities Claim” referred to Impac’s own securities. Impac urged that the phrase had an additional meaning extending it to the mortgage-backed securities at issue in the underlying disputes. Impac argues that the term securities “of” the company encompasses securities that were possessed, connected or associated with the company.

With respect to Impac’s interpretation of the definition, Judge Tucker said:

The fact that it would be “semantically permissible” to interpret the Policies’ language as extending coverage to securities Impac bought, sold or was involved in the creation of is not sufficient to create coverage where none would otherwise exist. Rather the court must interpret the disputed language in context, w with regard to its intended function in the policy. Here, Impac has provided no admissible evidence that such an interpretation gives effect to the mutual intention of the parties. (Citations omitted)

Judge Tucker went on to note that Impac’s proposed interpretation “would require the phrase ‘securities of’ to carry multiple meaning within one policy definition.” She added that in the context of the full definition and policy, “the phrase ‘securities of’ makes sense only in reference to the securities of Impac itself.” She added that by ascribing multiple meaning so the phrase, “Impac’s construction would result in the provision of vastly broader coverage when the insured happens to engage in the business of securitizing mortgages and would cause a traditional D&O Policy for those particular companies to become a defacto E&O policy, i.e., a professional liability policy for entities.”

Judge Tucker also concluded that coverage was precluded by the D&O policy’s Error and Omissions Exclusion, precluding coverage for the company’s “performance of (or failure to perform) any professional services.” She noted in that regard that Impac had asserted against the co-defendant in the action – that is, Impac’s E&O insurer – that the underlying claims do arise out of the provision of professional services.

While she concluded that coverage was precluded under the D&O policy’s Errors and Omissions exclusion, Judge Tucker did rule in Impac’s favor ruling in a separate February 26, 2013 order (here) in Impac’s separate action against its E&O insurer. She held that that Impac’s securities transactions constituted professional services under the E&O policy. The parties had disputed whether the underlying claims, which related to Impac’s securitization of mortgages, arose out of Impac’s “performance of or failure to perform professional services for others.” The E&O policy defined Impac’s profession as “mortgage banker/mortgage broker.” Judge Tucker concluded that “the undisputed facts support the conclusion that the securitization was a central element in Impac’s mortgage banking/brokerage business.”

She also found that an exclusion cited by Lloyd’s was too ambiguous to warrant a denial of coverage. (The exclusion on which the E&O insurer had sought to rely excluded coverage for (1) “the depreciation (or the failure to appreciate) in value of any investment transaction” or (2) “any actual or alleged representation, advice, guarantee or warranty provided by or on behalf of an Insured with regard to the performance of any such investment.”)

Discussion

Like many coverage disputes, the dispute here over whether or not the claims at issue were or were not “Securities Claims” came down to an interpretation of the specific policy language at issue. But even without reference to the specific provisions in the policy, it would have represented an unexpected result for a company’s D&O insurance policy to pick up coverage for claims brought against it for its activities as a mortgage securitizer. As Judge Tucker correctly concluded, to do so would require the D&O insurance policy to provide coverage for the company’s delivery of professional services and would thereby convert the policy into an E&O insurance policy – when in fact the D&O policy carried an express exclusion of coverage for claims arising from the delivery of or the failure to deliver professional services.

In a Monday morning quarterbacking kind of a way, I find it irresistible to note that the extent of the policy’s coverage would have been clearer if the policy had not only generally excluded coverage for claims arising from the delivery of professional services but also expressly precluded from the definition of securities claim the company’s issuance of securities as part of its business as a mortgage securitizer.

While I don’t have a problem with Judge Tucker’s interpretation of the policy here, there are other gray areas that arise from time to time with respect to the extent of D&O insurance coverage for securities claims. There are claims that can arise when a company is hauled into a lawsuit alleging violations of the securities laws when the specific securities at issue may not be those of the insured company.

A couple of examples come to mind: say, for example, when the insured company has spun out one of its divisions as a stand alone, publicly traded entity, and the separate entities file claims not only against the new company but out of the predecessor firm as well. (For an example of this kind of claim, refer here). Another example is an aiding and abetting type lawsuit; say, for example, an insured company is alleged to have violated the securities laws by aiding another company misrepresent its financial condition (sure, private claimants can’t assert these kinds of claims under the federal securities laws, but the SEC can, and private claimants could assert their claims in reliance on state law liability theories). A D&O insurance policy limiting “Securities Claims” solely to claims relating to securities “of” the company arguably might preclude coverage for these claims. For that reason, I have preferred definitions of the term “Securities Claim” that extends coverage to any claim alleging a violation of the federal securities laws or state or local equivalents.

From the factual allegations in the Impac case, I can now see (from the carrier’s perspective), at least one flaw with a definition of the term “Securities Claim” that would extend coverage to any alleged violation of the securities laws. If Impac’s D&O policy had included this “any violation of the securities laws” formulation, the policy might well have picked up coverage for the claims against Impac arising from its mortgage securitization activities, which is a result I am certain that the D&O insurer did not intend here.

Recognition of this potential shortcoming to the “any violation of the securities laws” formulation suggests a need to devise a new formulation, one that would not hazard the kind of unintended result I noted in the preceding paragraph. My current thought is that perhaps the “any violation of the securities laws” formulation could include a provision expressly precluding coverage for the company’s issuance of securities other than its own securities.

This is the kind of topic that I think would benefit from a more thorough discussion. I welcome readers thoughts on this topic, under the heading – “toward a more perfect definition of the term ‘Securities Claim’.”

One final note for practitioners. In her analysis of the D&O policy, Judge Tucker correctly determines that traditional “duty to defend” case law and policy interpretation principles do not apply to a “duty to advance” D&O insurance policy. Those involved in litigating defense expense issues in the context of a D&O insurance policy may find her discussion of these issues useful.

A Stray Thought about Current Events: Pope Benedict has now moved on to his new life as Pope Emeritus. He undoubtedly hopes he can look forward to a life of quiet contemplation. Everyone here at The D&O Diary wishes him well. Whatever may lie ahead for him and for the Catholic Church, we can all be sure that Benedict will avoid the fate of one of his predecessors, Pope Formosus, who died in April 896 at the age of eighty-one after a five year papacy.

As described in Paul Collins’s recent book, The Birth of the West, a one-volume history of the nascent beginnings of modern Europe in the Tenth Century, following the death of Pope Formosus, his successor, Pope Stephen, convened what has become known as the “Cadaver Synod.” Ten months after Pope Formosus died, and under pressure from local magnates, Pope Stephen had his predecessor’s corpse exhumed, dressed in pontifical robes, and placed in a bishop’s chair to be tried for heresy. With troops surrounding the city, the terrified bishops called to pass judgment quickly found Formosus guilty of violating church law. All of his papal acts were declared void and his dead body, stripped of the papal robes, was reinterred as a layman in unconsecrated ground.

If Pope Stephen hoped this macabre ceremony would preserve peace, he was mistaken. Collins notes that “the Cadaver Synod marked the beginning of some of the worst internecine civil strife in the history of papal Rome.” All of this took place at a time when Europe was beset with recurring invasions from Vikings, Magyars and Saracens.

For those who are worried that the current Catholic Church faces challenges, well, things have been worse. Yet it was from this chaos that the rudiments of modern Europe slowly emerged. In any event, here’s hoping that the upcoming papal transition be smoother than some of those in the past have been.

Speaker’s Corner: On March 19, 2013, I will be speaking at a panel at the C5 Forum on D&O Liability Insurance in London. I will be participating on a panel entitled “The Impact of Increased Regulatory Oversight and Regulatory Investigations.” The panel will include my good friends Helga Munger of Munich Re, Cristiana Baez-Safa of XL and Ralf Rebetge of Chubb. The C5 Forum, which is excellent every year, includes a number of interesting sessions and an outstanding line up of speakers. Conference information, including registration instructions, can be found here. If you are planning on attending, I hope you will make a point of greeting me at the conference particularly if we have not previously met.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 5, 2013, in a detailed opinion exploring the nuances of a D&O policy’s extended reporting period provisions, Western District of North Carolina Judge Henry Herlong Jr.  determined that the directors of the failed Bank of Ashville of Asheville, North Carolina timely provided their D&O insurer notice of the FDIC’s lawsuit against them as the failed bank’s receiver. Practitioners in the D&O arena will want to read this opinion, a copy of which can be found here, for its examination of the interactions between the policy’s “basic” 60-day extended reporting period and its 12-month “supplemental” extended reporting period.

Background

The Bank of Asheville failed on January 21, 2011. As discussed here, on December 29, 2011, the FDIC as the failed bank’s receiver filed a lawsuit in the Western District of North Carolina against seven former directors of the bank. On December 29, 2011, the directors provided the bank’s holding company’s D&O insurer with notice of the FDIC’s lawsuit.

The D&O policy provided coverage for the period November 3, 2007 through November 3, 2010. However, the policy contains a 60-day “basic” extended reporting period, allowing for the notice of claims 60 days beyond the policy’s expiration. The policy also provided for a 12-month “supplemental” extended reporting period that, by endorsement and upon payment of an extra premium charge, allows an additional 12 month reporting period. The “supplemental” extended reporting provision in the policy provided that “the supplemental Period starts when the Basic Extended Reporting Period …ends.” 

Through a process that the court’s opinion reviewed in detail, the bank purchased the 12-month supplemental extended reporting period prior to the expiration of the policy period. The endorsement the D&O insurer issued specified that the supplemental extended reporting period is “11-01-2010 – 11-01-2011.”

After the directors submitted notice of the FDIC lawsuit to the insurer, the insurer took the position that the notice was untimely. The directors filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurer is required to pay defense costs and any settlements or judgments in the FDIC’s lawsuit. The directors also alleged a claim for reformation of the policy. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

The February 5 Opinion

In his February 5 opinion, Judge Herlong granted the directors’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the directors had timely provided notice of the FDIC lawsuit to the insurer prior to the expiration of the extended reporting period.

The dispute that the court considered came down to the question whether the 12-month supplemental extended reporting period ran from the end of the policy period of the policy or from the end of the policy’s 60-day basic extended reporting period.

After a detailed review of the communications between the various parties involved in the acquisition of the supplemental extended reporting period, the court concluded that

Although the Policy provided a 60-day basic Extended Reporting Period automatically, [the D&O insurer] charged the Bank the maximum permitted under the Policy, a 200 percent premium, for the 12-months of Supplemental Extended Reporting Period coverage. However [the D&O insurer] erroneously used the dates November 3, 2010 to November 3, 2011. Thus under [the D&O insurer’s] argument, the Bank paid for 12 months and received only 10 months of additional extended reporting coverage. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the starting and ending dates of the Endorsement conflict with the terms of the Policy and is ambiguous because it is subject to different interpretations regarding the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period and the 12-month Supplemental Extended Reporting Period.

The D&O insurer argued that all of the documents and communications, including in particular the endorsement showing a supplemental extended reporting period from November 3, 2010 to November 3, 2011, “support a finding that the intent of the parties was to eliminate the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period.”

Judge Herlong said that this “is an amazing argument, “ asking the question “Why would the Bank forfeit the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period when the Policy specifically provides that if the Bank purchases an extended reporting period of 12 months, the 12-month period begins when the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period ‘ends’?”

Judge Herlong concluded that “the evidence is clear that the Plaintiffs did not know or intend to forfeit the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period. To the contrary, the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that the Plaintiffs paid for 14-months of extended reporting coverage, which includes the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period and the 12-month Supplemental Extended Reporting Period.” Judge Herlong granted the directors request to reform the schedule of the endorsement to allow for notice during the period January 3, 2011 to January 3, 2012, as a result of which the directors’ notice to the insurer of the FDIC’s lawsuit was timely.

Discussion

Although this decision is fact intensive and is a reflection of the specific policy language involved, it nevertheless represents a cautionary tale that is worth heeding. D&O policies are complex contracts with a variety of parts that interact in myriad subtle ways. My review of the sequence of events here as well as a familiarity with the way that the transaction of the kind involved here are processed suggests to me that the parties really were not fully conscious of the possible complications arising from the interaction between the basic extended reporting period and the supplemental extended reporting period.

Once the dispute arose, the parties tried to argue over what had been intended, when in reality there had really been no intent, as the persons involved in the transaction may not have been conscious of the potential issue in the first place; the carrier provided a quote with and issued the supplemental extended reporting period endorsement with dates that did not take the 60-day basic extended reporting period into account. The bank and its representatives accepted the quote and placed the order for the supplemental extended reporting period without objecting that the specific period that the carrier proposed to provide did not take the 60-day basic extended reporting period into account. Accordingly, faced with a fundamentally ambiguous situation (but taking into account the policy’s provision that the supplemental extended reporting period starts when the basic extended reporting period ends), the court construed the situation in the directors’ favor.

I think anyone who has been involved in these kinds of situations can see how this happened. The policy allowed for a 12 month reporting period extension, the bank said it wanted a 12 month extension, and the carrier issued an endorsement that extended the reporting period 12 months. Because I can see how what happened here could happen, I am reluctant to try to draw conclusions too broadly, other than to say that this case does provide a lesson for us all on the need when modifying a policy to consider all of the ways that the proposed modification will affect the policy.  On a much simpler level, the case does provide an important illustration of the ways that the policy’s various extended reporting provisions interact. I want to make clear that in stating these conclusions here, I do not mean to suggest that I am finding fault with anyone’s actions. As I said, I can see how this situation came about.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I have discussed in prior posts (refer here for example), one of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues that has arisen in connection with the FDIC’s failed bank litigation is the question whether or not the FDIC’s claims as receiver for the failed bank against the bank’s former directors and officers trigger the D&O policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion. In a terse January 4, 2013 opinion (here), Northern District of Georgia Judge Robert L. Vining, Jr. held that, owing to the “multiple roles” in which the FDIC acts in pursuing claims against the former directors and officers of a failed bank, there is “ambiguity” on the question whether the FDIC’s lawsuit triggers the insured vs. insured exclusion.

Background

Omni National Bank of Atlanta Georgia failed on March 27, 2009 (refer here). The FDIC was appointed as receiver for the failed bank. On March 16, 2012, the FDIC initiated a lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia against ten former directors and officers of the bank, asserting claims against the defendants for negligence and gross negligence in connection with the approval of certain loans on low-income residential properties.

The bank’s D&O insurer initiated a separate declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that there is no coverage under the bank’s D&O policy for the FDIC’s claims against the bank’s former directors and officers.

The D&O insurer filed a motion for summary judgment the declaratory judgment action, on three grounds: first: the carrier argued that because the FDIC as receiver “steps into the shoes” of the failed bank, the FDIC’s claim represents a claim “by, on behalf of, or at the behest of, the Company,” and therefore is precluded from coverage under the policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion; second, that the losses the FDIC seeks to recover do not fall within the policy’s definition of “loss,” which includes the so-called “loan loss carve-out”; and third that the policy does not in any event provide coverage for wrongful acts alleged against the former directors and officers that took place after the policy’s expiration.

The January 4 Opinion

In his January 4, 2013 opinion, Judge Vining denied the carrier’s motion for summary judgment with on the first two grounds, but granted summary judgment with respect to the alleged wrongful acts that took place after the policy’s expiration.

In rejecting the insurer’s argument that coverage is precluded by the policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion, Judge Vining said that “it is unclear whether the FDIC-R’s claims are ‘by ‘or ‘on behalf of’ the failed bank.” He added that “it is unclear what exactly is encompassed by the phrase ‘steps into the shoes.” These “ambiguities” arise, Judge Vining found, “in part because the FDIC-R differs from other receivers or conservators that might step into the shoes of a failed or insolvent bank.”

Judge Vining then reviewed the FDIC’s authority under FIREEA to recover losses, and the fact that in recovering losses the FDIC has authority to act on behalf of the bank’s depositors, creditors and shareholders.  Judge Vining noted that “the FDIC-R has multiple roles.” Accordingly, he concluded that “the FDIC-R has show that some ambiguity exists in the insured versus insured exclusion,” and he denied the carrier’s motion for summary judgment in reliance on the exclusion.

Judge Vining also rejected the carrier’s motion for summary judgment based on the argument that the financial losses the FDIC sought to recover did not constitute covered loss under the policy. Judge Vining found that “ambiguity exists in the definition of ‘loss’” because the “loan loss carve-out” does not “clearly exempt tortious claims” which is “the basis” for the FDIC’s claims in the underlying D&O liability action.

Discussion

Although D&O insurers have raised the insured vs. insured exclusion as a defense to coverage in connection with a number of FDIC failed bank claims, Judge Vining’s ruling in the Omni National Bank is so far as I am aware only the second ruling in connection with the current failed bank wave in which a court has made a ruling regarding the applicability of the insured v. insured exclusion to an action brought by the FDIC in its capacity as a receiver for a failed bank.

As discussed here, in October 2012, District of Puerto Rico Judge Gustavo Gelpi denied the D&O insurer’s motion to dismiss the coverage action the FDIC had brought against the carrier under Puerto Rico’s direct action statute. The D&O carrier involved had sought to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the D&O policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion precluded coverage for the FDIC’s claims in its capacity of the failed Westernbank against the bank’s former directors and officers. Judge Gelpi declined to dismiss the action, noting that the FDIC has authority under FIRREA to act “on behalf of depositors, account holders, and a depleted insurance fund,” and therefore that “the FDIC’s role as a regulator sufficiently distinguishes it from those whom the parties intended to prevent from bringing claims under the Exclusion.”

In both cases, the respective judges held that the carriers were not entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the exclusion precluded coverage. Both Judge Gelpi in the prior case and Judge Vining here determined that the Insured vs. Insured did not preclude coverage as a matter of law because the FDIC has the authority under FIRREA to act on behalf of a variety of different constituencies. The FDIC as well as individual directors and officers seeking coverage under their bank’s D&O insurance policies undoubtedly will seek to rely on these rulings in order to try to fight other carrier’s attempts to assert the Insured vs. Insured exclusion as a defense to coverage.

The insurers, however, will likely contend that even if the FDIC is acting on behalf of these other constituencies in bringing the suit, it is first and foremost bringing the suit in its capacity as receiver for the failed bank, as that is the basis upon which it has any right to bring the claims in the first place. The insurers will further argue that the sole basis on which the FDIC has any right to assert the claims is because, by operation of the receivership, it is acting “in the right of” the failed bank, and therefore the preclusive language of the exclusion applies, notwithstanding the fact that the FDIC may have other purposes and motivations in bringing the action.

The carriers will further argue that the policy’s exclusion does not require, in order for the exclusion to apply, that the action be brought “solely” or “only” “in the right of” the Organization. The insurers will argue that because the action was brought “in the right of” the Organization, the exclusion applies notwithstanding the fact that in bringing the claim the FDIC was also action on behalf of other constituencies.

Though these rulings unquestionably are helpful for the FDIC and the individual directors and officers, it seems likely that these issues will continue to be litigated in other cases.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of Judge Vining’s January 4 Order.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A significant side-effect from the current bank failure wave has been the FDIC’s assertion of claims against the former directors and officers of many of the failed banks. The FDIC’s claims have in turn raised significant questions of insurance coverage under many of the failed banks’ D&O insurance policies. As discussed in a prior post (here), one of the significant coverage issues that has come up is whether or not the claims of the FDIC, which it is asserting in its capacity as receiver for the failed banks, are precluded under the Insured vs. Insured exclusion found in most D&O insurance policies. (The Insured vs. Insured Exclusion is sometimes referred to as the I v I exclusion.)

In what is as far as I know the first decision on this issue as part of the coverage litigation arising out the current bank failure wave, the federal court in Puerto Rico has ruled that the I v I exclusion in the D&O insurance program of the failed Westernbank of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico does not preclude coverage for the FDIC’s claims against the failed bank’s former directors and officers. A copy of the court’s October 23, 2012 decision can be found here.

Regulators closed Westernbank on April 30, 2010, which according to the FDIC cost the insurance fund $4.25 billion. In October 2011, certain of the former Westernbank directors and officers had sued the bank's primary D&O insurer in state court in Puerto Rico (about which refer here). The FDIC as receiver for Westernbank moved to intervene in the state court action, and on December 30, 2011, removed the state court action to the District of Puerto Rico. On January 20, 2012, the FDIC filed its amended complaint in intervention, in which it named as defendants certain additional directors and officers,  and, in reliance on Puerto Rico’s direct action statute, the D&O insurers in the bank's D&O insurance program. A copy of the FDIC's amended complaint can be found here.

In its complaint, the FDIC, as Westernbank’s receiver, seeks recovery of over $176 million in damages from the former bank’s directors and officers as well as their conjugal partners, based on twenty-one alleged grossly negligent commercial real estate, construction and asset-based loans approved and administered from January 28, 2004 through November 19, 2009. In its complaint in intervention in the directors and officers coverage action against the bank’s D&O insurers, the FDIC seeks a judicial declaration that its claims against the directors and officers are covered under the policies. All of the defendants moved to dismiss the respective claims against them.

In his October 23 opinion and order, Judge Gustavo Gelpi denied all of the motions to dismiss. His rulings with respect to the D&O insurers’ motions to dismiss the coverage actions against them appear on pages 16 and following in the October 23 opinion.

The D&O insurers had moved to dismiss the coverage actions that had been filed against them in reliance on the I v I exclusion in the primary insurance policy. The exclusion provides that “The Insurer shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in connection with any Claim made against an Insured …which is brought by, or on behalf of, an Organization or any Insured Person other than an Employee of an Organization, in any respect and whether or not collusive.” The insurers argued that as receiver for the failed Westernbank, the FDIC stood in the shoes of Westernbank, which is an insured under the policy, and therefore the FDIC’s claims against the failed bank’s directors and officers were precluded from coverage under the D&O insurance policies by operation of the I v I exclusion.

As Judge Gelpi noted in his opinion these same issues were raised and litigated in a number of cases during the S&L crisis two decades ago. And as Judge Gelpi also notes in his opinion, these prior courts had split on the question of whether or not a D&O insurance policy’s Insured vs. Insured Exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver against a failed bank’s former directors and officers. In summarizing these cases, Judge Gelpi noted that the question of the applicability of the exclusion in this context “is ambiguous.”

Judge Gelpi then, “with these differences in mind,” turned to the “purposes of the exclusion, the complaint and the specific terms of the policy for guidance.” He noted that the “obvious purpose” of the exclusion is to protect against collusive law suits; however, he also noted that the exclusion itself on which the insurers sought to rely made the exclusion applicable to Insured vs. Insured claims “whether or not collusive.”

The question to which Judge Gelpi then turned is whether or not the FDIC’s claims against the former directors and officers of Westernbank were “brought by, on behalf of or in the right of, and Organization or any Insured Person.” Judge Gelpi noted that the policy defines the term “Organization” as the named entity, each subsidiary and debtors in bankruptcy proceedings. After citing these provisions, Judge Gelpi summarily concluded that “Accordingly, the court finds that the FDIC’s course of conduct does not run afoul of this provision.” In reliance on prior cases that had concluded that the I v I Exclusion “does not prelude the FDIC from seeking redress from the Insurers.” 

By way of further elaboration, Judge Gelpi noted that the FDIC is suing “on behalf of depositors, account holders, and a depleted insurance fund,” and therefore that “the FDIC’s role as a regulator sufficiently distinguishes it from those whom the parties intended to prevent from bringing claims under the Exclusion.”

Discussion

Judge Gelpi’s ruling in this case is a significant victory for the individual directors and officers who hoped to be able to rely on the D&O insurance policies in order to be able to defend themselves against the FDIC’s claims against them, as well as for the FDIC, which hopes to be able to recover the losses it claims from the D&O insurance policies.

As the first decision on this insurance coverage issue in connection with the current bank failure wave, Judge Gelpi’s ruling will also obviously be of great interest to other failed bank directors and officers who face FDIC claims and whose D&O insurance carriers have tried to deny coverage in reliance on their respective policies’ Insured vs. Insured Exclusions. But while Judge Gelpi’s decision unquestionably will be helpful to the directors and officers in the other cases, it is far from the final word on the subject.

For starters, the split of authority in the cases from S&L crisis era remains. As Judge Gelpi noted, the courts have gone both ways on these issues and the carriers undoubtedly will continue to attempt to rely on the cases holding that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion does preclude coverage for claims brought by the FDIC.

A further reason that Judge Gelpi’s decision is unlikely to provide the final word on the subject is that other courts may not find the logic on which Judge Gelpi relied as compelling as he did. Judge Gelpi does not, for example, appear to have even considered the question of whether or not an action by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver of a failed bank (and therefore in effect, “standing in the shoes of the failed bank”) is an action “in the right of” the Organization, within the language and meaning of the exclusion. Other courts may consider it important in considering the exclusion’s potential applicability to address this issue expressly, as Judge Gelpi’s opinion does not. These other courts, in more careful consideration of this issue, might also conclude that the FDIC asserting claims as a failed bank’s receiver is asserting claims “in the right of” the failed bank and therefore that the exclusion applies.

In support of his conclusion, Judge Gelpi also considered it important that the FDIC was not only suing in its capacity as receiver, but was also suing on behalf of “depositors, account holders, and a depleted insurance fund.” Indeed, many of the courts that had ruled during the S&L crisis era that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion did not preclude coverage for claims by the FDIC had made their decisions in reliance on the same or similar observations about the FDIC’s claims.

The insurers, however, will likely contend that even if the FDIC is acting on behalf of these other constituencies in bringing the suit, it is first and foremost bringing the suit in its capacity as receiver for the failed bank, as that is the basis upon which it has any right to bring the claims in the first place. The insurers will further argue that the sole basis on which the FDIC has any right to assert the claims is because, by operation of the receivership, it is acting “in the right of” the failed bank, and therefore the preclusive language of the exclusion applies, notwithstanding the fact that the FDIC may have other purposes and motivations in bringing the action. The policy’s exclusion does not require, in order for the exclusion to apply, that the action be brought “solely” or “only” “in the right of” the Organization. The insurers will argue that because the action was brought “in the right of” the Organization, the exclusion applies notwithstanding the fact that in bringing the claim the FDIC was also action on behalf of other constituencies.

All of which is a long way of saying that though the policyholders and the FDIC prevailed in this case, these issues are likely to continue to be litigated, and the split of cases we saw during the S&L crisis is likely to continue.

Very special thanks to the several readers who supplied me with copies of Judge Gulpi’s opinion.

Another Georgia Failed Bank Lawsuit: On October 23, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for the failed United Security Bank of Sparta, Georgia filed its latest failed bank lawsuit. The complaint, which the FDIC filed in the Northern District of Georgia, can be found here.

United Security bank failed on November 6, 2009. The FDIC’s lawsuit as the bank’s receiver is filed against a single defendant, Pierce Neese, the bank’s former CEO and also a bank director. The FDIC’s complaint asserts claims of Negligence and Gross Negligence against Neese in connection with 16 loans made between November 10, 2005 and March 27, 2008, which the agency alleges caused damages to the bank of over $6.373 million.

An unusual feature of the FDIC’s complaint, and perhaps the explanation why there is only a singe defendant is the case, is the agency’s allegation that from 2002 until March 2006, Neese “was effectively the Bank’s senior credit officer and functioned as a ‘One-Man Bank.’” Even after the bank established itself as a three-person LLC at the direction of regulators, Neese “continued to function as the Bank’s ‘one-man’ LLC until the Bank failed. According to the complaint, the bank even had print advertisements stating, “Meet Our Loan Committee, Pierce Neese.” The FDIC alleges that by dominating and usurping the loan approval process, Neese rendered the usual lending controls ineffective.

The FDIC’s complaint against Neese is the latest that the FDIC has recently filed as banks that failed in 2009 approach the third year anniversary of their closure (about which refer here). The complaint is also is the 35^th lawsuit that the FDIC has filed as part of the current failed bank wave and the 17^th that the agency has filed so far in 2012. The FDIC’s lawsuit against Neese is also the tenth lawsuit the FDIC has filed in connection with a failed Georgia bank. Although Georgia has had more failed banks than any other state, the percentage of all failed bank lawsuit involving failed Georgia banks is even greater than the percentage of all bank failures involving Georgia banks. For now at least, it seems as if the regulators are focusing on Georgia more than other states.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Two more courts have joined the growing line of cases holding that excess insurer’s payment obligations were not triggered where the policyholder funded part of the loss below the excess insurer’s limit.

First, on September 12, 2012, New York (New York County) Supreme Court Judge Melvin Schweitzer, applying New York law, ruled in favor of a top level excess insurer where the two underlying excess insurers had paid less then their full policy limits and Forest Laboratories, the policyholder, had funded the gap. A copy of Judge Schweitzer’s opinion can be found here.

Second, on September 17, 2012, the Sixth Circuit, applying Ohio law, affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the excess insurer, holding that the excess insurer’s policy limit had not been triggered when the insured, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, had reached a compromise with the primary carrier in which the primary carrier had paid less than its full policy limit. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion can be found here.

The Forest Labs Case

Forest Laboratories had a $70 million D&O insurance tower, consisting of a primary $10 million layer and six excess layers of $10 million each. Forest Labs became involved in securities class action litigation, which it ultimately settled for $65 million. Defense and claims expense added several million dollars more of cost. Forest Labs’ primary insurer and the first three excess carriers paid their full policy limits. However the fourth and fifth level excess insurers reached compromises with the policyholder in which each paid only a part of its limit and Forest Labs “filled in the gaps.” Forest Labs then sought payment from the top level excess insurer.

The top level excess insurer contended that because of Forest Labs’ compromise with the underlying excess insurers, the payment obligations under its excess policy had not been triggered. In making this argument, the top level excess insurer relied on language in its policy specifying that it is obligated to pay only when the underlying coverage has been exhausted “solely as a result of actual payment of a Covered Claim pursuant to the terms conditions of the underlying insurance.” The top level excess insurer also sought to rely on exhaustion trigger language in one of the underlying excess policies, which the top level excess insurer argued was incorporated by reference into its excess policy.

Forest Labs relied on the venerable Second Circuit decision in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, arguing that the top level excess insurer’s policy language was ambiguous and therefore should not be interpreted to preclude coverage. In response to Forest Labs’ reliance on Zeig, the top level excess insurer relied on the growing list of cases in which  courts had found that excess insurer’s payment obligations had not been triggered where, like here, the policyholder had funded part of the underlying loss amounts out of pocket. Among other cases, the top level excess insurer relied on the Comerica case (about which refer here), the Qualcomm case (refer here), the Bally Total Fitness Case (here), and the J.P.Morgan case (refer here).

Judge Schweitzer said, referring to the many cases on which the top level insurer sought to rely, that “these examples,” along with the more specific trigger language in the underlying excess policies, “evince a clarity unfortunately missing from the [top level excess insurer’] policy language.” He added, however, that this “does not render [the top level excess insurer’s] policy ambiguous, as in Zeig.”

Citing the top level excess insurer’s policy language providing that its payment obligations are triggered only when the underlying insurance is exhausted “solely as a result of actual payment of a Covered Claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Underlying Insurance,” which Judge Schweitzer found is “not ambiguous,” Judge Schweitzer concluded that the top level excess insurer was obligated to pay “only after the insurance has been paid under the provisions of the underlying policies … which provisions necessarily include their term limits.” Thus, Judge Schweitzer added, the top level excess insurer “pays only after the underlying insurers pay up to their policy limits.”

Judge Schweitzer commented that while the top level excess insurer “certainly could have done a better job of drafting its policy, and has many examples of better language to refer to [sic] accomplish that, the language it chose still protects [the top level excess insurer] in the situation, as here where the underlying insurers never paid their full policy amounts, due to settlements with plaintiff.”

The Goodyear Case

In 2003, Goodyear, following a restatement of its previously released financial statements, became involved in securities class action litigation and related SEC investigation. The lawsuits ultimately were dismissed and the SEC terminated its investigation. Goodyear incurred about $30 million in legal and accounting costs in connection with these matters.

Goodyear carried $25 million in D&O insurance, consisting of a primary layer of $15 million and an excess layer of $10 million. The insurers disputed coverage for Goodyear’s $30 million in expenses, particularly the costs associated with the SEC investigation. Goodyear ultimately reached a compromise with the primary carrier, in which the primary carrier paid only $10 million of its $15 million limit. The excess carrier then contended that its payment obligations had not been triggered, relying on the language in its excess policy providing that “Coverage hereunder shall attach only after [the Underlying Insurer] shall have paid in legal currency the full amount of the [Underlying limit].”

The dispute over the excess insurer’s payment obligation ultimately wound up in litigation. The district court entered summary judgment in the excess insurer’s favor.

On September 17, 2012, in an opinion applying Ohio law and written by Judge Raymond Kethledge for a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit, affirmed the district court’s summary judgment grant. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion opens by observing that the parties’ dispute represents the “latest in a series of recent cases in which one corporation asks us to disregard the plain terms of an insurance agreement with another corporation.” (The Sixth Circuit opinion does not identify the other cases in the recent series to which it was referring.) The appellate court said that relevant provision in the excess carrier’s policy is “undisputedly clear and unambiguous.”

Goodyear had argued that, notwithstanding the provision, that the Court should enforce the excess insurer’s payment obligation, because of public policy favoring settlements and because the excess insurer had not been prejudiced by Goodyear’s compromise with the underlying insurer. The Sixth Circuit rejected both of these arguments.

In rejecting the public policy argument, the Sixth Circuit said that, by contrast to the uninsured motorist cases on which Goodyear relied, “what we have here, instead, is an insurance agreement into which sophisticated parties have freely entered,” adding that the Court “will enforce the agreement according to its terms.” 

In rejecting Goodyear’s argument that the excess insurer’s payment obligations should be enforced because Goodyear’s deal with the primary carrier had not prejudiced the excess carrier, the appellate court said that “this case does not concern a mere notice or cooperation requirement, which perhaps we could waive off without any harm to the insurer.” Rather, the court said, adding a note of supposed humor that I am sure Goodyear did not appreciate, “the provision at issue here is where the rubber hits the road,” adding that “the agreement’s Insuring Clause, under whose terms [the excess carrier] undisputedly did not agree to provide coverage that Goodyear now seeks.” Goodyear’s arguments, the Court concluded, are “meritless.”

Discussion

As I noted at the outset, and as the citations on which Forest Labs’ top level excess insurer relied demonstrate, there is a growing list of cases reaching the same conclusion that an excess D&O insurers payment obligations are not triggered where as here the underlying insurers paid less than their full policy limits and the policyholder funded the gap. The latest case in this line of cases can be found here.

There is a troubling aspect of this growing line of cases. If you take this line of cases as a whole, what you have are an awful lot of excess insurers walking away from their payment obligations. They agreed to take on the risk and they collected their premiums and in a disputed claims situation where losses clearly pierced their layer, they are successfully fighting off their payment obligations. This effort now apparently includes the possibility that an excess insurer can bootstrap the trigger language from an underlying insurance policy to avert its payment obligation.

To be sure, now that this growing line of cases has highlighted the issue, many insurance buyers are seeking, and many excess insurers are now granting, excess coverage trigger language that allows the amounts below the excess insurer’s attachment point to be funded by payment either by the underlying insurers or by the policyholder. With this type of alternative payment trigger language in place, excess insurers are much less likely to be able to avoid payment. However, the Forest Labs case underscores the fact that the language needs to be cleaned up all the way up the tower, to guard against the possibility that an upper level excess insurer might, like the top level excess insurer here, try to bootstrap trigger language from an underlying policy in order to try to avoid its payment obligation.

Nate Raymond has a good article on the On the Case blog, here, discussing the two decisions. Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of the Sizth Circuit opinion.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is a host of well established legal principles that govern insurers’ defense obligation under the standard liability insurance policy where the insurer has the duty to defend the insureds. But many professional liability insurance policies are not written on with the duty on the insurer to defend (which is usually described as a “duty to defend” basis). Because many professionals want to control their own defense, liability insurance for these professionals often provides that the insured professionals will defend themselves, with the obligation on the insurer to advance defense expenses as they are incurred, subject to all of the policy’s terms and conditions.

Because the defense obligations under the more traditional duty to defend coverage are well established and are more familiar to many courts, the courts all too often attempt to resolve issues arising under duty to advance policies by referring to principles developed with regard to duty to defend policies.

A recent Central District of California decision in a dispute arising under a legal malpractice policy takes an interesting look at these issues. In an August 21, 2012 opinion (here), Judge James V. Selna, applying California law, rejected the insured’s arguments to have the malpractice insurer’s duty to advance obligations determined under duty to defend principles, and applying the more stringent principles  the court determined to be applicable to the insurer’s duty to advance, the court concluded that the insurer did not have the duty to advance the insured’s defense expenses he incurred in a dispute between the insured and his former law firm.

Background

Between May 2007 and March 2008, Gregory Glenn Petersen was an attorney with and shareholder of the Jackson, DeMarco, Tidius & Peckenpaugh law firm (JDTP). Before, during and after the time Petersen was with JDTP, he represented the San Diego Police Officers’ Association (SPDOA), as well as several individual police officers in litigation related to employment benefits and labor negotiations. The SPDOA and the individual officers later terminated Petersen as their counsel, and subsequently brought a legal malpractice action against, inter alia, JDTP and Petersen.

JDTP’s professional liability insurer paid all of JDTP’s and Petersen’s defense costs incurred in excess of the policy’s $150,000 retention. JDTP paid the retention amount. The malpractice action ended in a settlement that the insurer funded under the policy.

Thereafter, JDTP served an arbitration demand on Petersen, in which, as amended, JDTP sought to recover its payment of the $150,000 retention, as well as about $100,000 in fees the firm allegedly incurred in dealing with Petersen’s departure from JDTP and in connection with the malpractice cases. Petersen submitted the arbitration dispute as a claim under JDTP’s professional liability insurance policy, seeking to have the insurer fund his defense and indemnify him. The insurer denied coverage for the dispute and Petersen filed an action for declaratory judgment against the insurer and for damages. In his declaratory judgment claim, Petersen sought a judicial declaration that the insurer has an immediate duty to advance his expenses incurred in defending against the JDTP arbitration claim. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Among other things, JDTP’s professional liability insurance policy provides that “the Assureds and not the Company have the duty to defend Claims” (the “Company” being a reference to the insurance company), providing further that, subject to the policy’s other terms and conditions, “the Company on behalf of the Assureds shall Advance Claim Expenses … in excess of the applicable RETENTION, if any, before the final disposition of a Claim against the Assureds.”

The August 21 Opinion

In seeking a judicial declaration that the insurer must advance his defense expenses, Petersen argued in reliance on principles established under duty to defend policies that “to prevail on his claims he need only show a possibility that there is a covered claim.” He reasoned that “the duty to advance claims expenses is sufficiently analogous to the duty to defend that the same standard should apply.” The insurer argued that the “possibility of coverage” standard and other rules of law governing a policy with a duty to defend do not apply to a policy containing only a duty to advance claims expenses.

The court reviewed several cases on which the parties relied, determining first that the courts have indeed differentiated the duty to advance claims expenses from the duty to defend. Judge Selna also reviewed a decision on which Petersen sought to rely arising out of the WorldCom securities litigation and under New York law. Judge Selna discounted that case because it arose under New York law rather than California law, and concluded in any event that it was not persuasive of Petersen’s position.

After considering the cases applying California law and arising under policies providing for a duty to advance defense expenses rather than a duty to defend, Judge Selna turned to the policy in dispute. He noted to the “policy provides for the claims expenses to be advanced subject to several conditions”, including the insured’s obligation to obtain the insurer’s consent to reasonable attorneys’ fees and to settlements; as well as subject to the policy’s allocation provisions. Combined with the policy’s “explicit disclaimer of any duty to defend,” Judge Selna found that the policy “is not consistent with the broader duty to defend.”

Accordingly, Judge Selna determined that he “will not apply any legal rule … based on a duty to defend policy to the present case” and concluded that Petersen had the burden of establishing “that the underlying claims are within the basic scope of coverage.”

Judge Selna then proceeded to determination that the claims presented within JDTP’s arbitration demand were within the policy’s scope of coverage, he ruled that “the uncontroverted facts show beyond a genuine issue of material fact that the arbitration asserted against Peterson does not require the Insurers to advance claims expenses because he is not covered by the Policy.” Judge Selna granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and denied Petersen’s  cross-motion.

Discussion

In my current professional role as a representative of policyholders’ interests, I often read cases these days rooting for the policyholders. But for a large part of my career, I represented insurers’ interests, both as an advocate and as an advisor. I recall all too well from those days representing insurers how vexing it was when courts were insufficiently precise in their understanding of insurer’s policy obligations. I found it particularly confounding when courts would blur the lines and apply principles applicable to the duty to defend policies in the determination of insurer’s obligations under duty to advance policies.

Even though these days I root for policyholders’ interests when reading case decisions,in the end, what I really want is for coverage disputes to be resolved based on a correct judicial understanding of the parties’ respective obligations under the insurance policy. In this case, the court correctly understood the insurer’s defense obligations and correctly declined to apply principles derived from duty to defend cases to the determination of the insurer’s obligations.

In the long haul, all parties’ interests will be served if coverage disputes are resolved based upon a correct judicial understanding of the parties’ policy obligations. In particular, all parties’ interests will be served if courts do not inappropriately seek to determine carriers’ obligations under a duty to advance policy applying principles determined in connection with duty to defend policies.

One thing that should be clear from all of this is the basic point that insurers’ obligations under a duty to advance policy are different from insurers’ obligations under duty to defend policies. In some situations, policyholders have a choice of which kind of defense provisions to have in their policies (this is particularly true in the private company D&O insurance context).

It is critically important when the policyholder is choosing which kind of defense arrangement to have in its policy for the policyholder to be fully informed about the differences in the kinds of defense arrangements. There are advantages and disadvantages to each type of arrangement; being able to understand and explain these differences requires an informed understanding of the claims process and how the difference defense arrangements might affect future claims. This is one more reason why it is particularly important to have an experienced and knowledgeable advisor involved in the professional liability insurance placement process.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of the August 21 opinion.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a decision that gives broad effect to a D&O insurance policy’s contractual liability exclusion, on August 17, 2012, Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge William Nealon granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, holding under Pennsylvania law that the insurer had no obligation to defend or indemnify the policyholder in the underlying action. A copy of Judge Nealon’s opinion can be found here.

Background

In 2004 and 2005, Uni-Marts sold a group of convenience stores in Pennsylvania. The buyers later contended that Uni-Marts had made misrepresentations and omissions about costs and expenses to induce prospective buyers. The buyers initiated a lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court against UniMarts (referred to as the Alliance Action). The complaint in the Alliance Action contained five causes of action against Uni-Marts: 1) fraud in the inducement; 2) negligent misrepresentation; 3) breach of the Fuel Supply Agreement;4) breach of the Purchase Agreement; and 5) breach of the Right of First Refusal Agreement. The Alliance Action ultimately settled for Uni-Marts’ agreement to pay the buyers $2 million and $25,000 in settlement administration costs, as well Uni-Marts’ agreement to certain changes in the contracts.

Uni-Marts sought coverage under its D&O insurance policy for its costs of defending the Alliance Action as well as for the cash amounts of the settlement. The D&O insurer denied coverage relying among other things on the policy’s contract exclusion, which provided that no coverage will be available “based upon, arising from, or in consequence of any actual or alleged liability of an Insured Organization under any written or oral contract or agreement, provided that this Exclusion … shall not apply to the extent that an Insured Organization would have been liable in the absence of the contract or agreement.” The carrier filed an action in federal court seeking a judicial declaration that coverage was precluded. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

The August 17 Holding

There was no dispute that count three through five in the Alliance Action were based on Uni-Marts’ alleged liability under a written contract. The parties disputed whether or not coverage was precluded by the policy’s contractual liability exclusion for the negligent misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement counts in the Alliance Action. Uni-Marts argued that the two tort claims arise out of pre-contractual conduct and stand alone from the contract claims.

Judge Nealon held, “giving plain meaning to the unambiguous language of the contract exclusion,” that the fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims “certainly are ‘based upon, arising out of, or in consequence of any actual or alleged liability’ under the contracts.” The tort claims, Judge Nealon found, “arise from the same essential facts and circumstances from those which underlie the breach of contract claims.” 

Of particular importance to Judge Nealon in reaching this conclusion is the fact that “the financial information relied upon by the class plaintiffs [in the Alliance Action] was incorporated into the Purchase Agreements.” Judge Nealon interpreted the plaintiffs in the underlying action as having alleged that the specific financial representations on which the plaintiffs relied as having been incorporated into the Representations, Warranties and Covenants section of the Purchase Agreement. Based on this determination, he concluded that “the fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims are based upon, arise from, or are in consequence of Uni-Marts’ liability under the agreements.”

Judge Nealon also went on to make a “but for” analysis with respect to the fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims, asking “would the store owners’ fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims exist even in the absence of the contracts and breach thereof. The answer to that question is no. Had the class plaintiffs not entered into the contracts and had Uni-Mart no breached the contracts, there would be no independent tort claims” because “the injuries suffered by the class plaintiffs would not have occurred had there been no contracts and no breach thereof.”

Judge Nealon concluded by noting that requiring the insurer “to cover this loss, which its essence is derived from a business agreement gone bad, would be greatly expanding the coverage of the D&O policy beyond that which is called for by the plain language.”

Discussion

For many readers, this case my present something of a surprise outcome. Certainly, claims for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation arguably represent the very kinds of things for which policyholders purchase D&O insurance. However, the outcome of this case can be understood as a reflection of two factors that interacted in this situation: the exclusion’s broad preamble, and Judge Nealon’s determination that the financial misrepresentations had been incorporated into the agreement.

In a prior post about the contractual liability exclusion generally, I have noted how extensively a contract exclusion with the broad “based upon, arising out of” preamble can sweep. While most private company D&O insurance policies have some form of contract exclusion, not all policies have adopted the broad preamble. The scope of language in the exclusion can substantially affect the extent of coverage available under the policy. In general, courts have applied a broadly preclusive interpretation to exclusions with the broad preamble language.

However, not every decision has swept so broadly as to preclude coverage for the types of tort claims asserted here; in particular, Judge Nealon was forced to try to distinguish a relatively recent Western District of Pennsylvania decision in which the court, under very similar circumstances, found that misrepresentation claims were not precluded from coverage. The way that Judge Nealon distinguished the prior case and reached the conclusion that the exclusion here precluded coverage was through his determination that all of the financial misrepresentations on which the plaintiffs relied had been incorporated into the Purchase Agreement. I suspect that not every reader will be persuaded by this analytic legerdemain. But this determination is in any event a distinct characteristic of this decision that may allow it to be distinguished in any future cases involving both breach of contract and misrepresentation claims.

The troublesome thing about the breadth of the preclusionary effect given here to the contractual liability exclusion is that some type of transaction is at the heart of many claims under a private company D&O insurance policy. The danger is that insureds could find themselves without coverge for claims of a kind that might well have assumed would be covered, but because of the involvement in the claim of an underlying transaction and because of the expansiveness of the D&O insurance policy’s contract exclusion are precluded from coverage.

The real problem here may be the expansiveness of the preamble to the exclusion. Clearly, the use of the broad "based upon" and "arising out of" language was instrumental to the outcome (setting aside of course the concerns about Judge Nealon’s determination that the financial representations had been incorporated into the Purchase Agreement).

Many carriers will insist on using the broad preamble for the contractual liability exclusion and will refuse to use the narrower “for” preamble language. However, given the extent of the preclusive effect that courts have found in interpreting policies with the broad omnibus wording, policy forms using the narrower "for" wording are, in this respect at least, clearly superior from the policyholder’s perspective, particularly if carriers whose policies have the broader wording choose to try to apply the exclusion to preclude a wide swath of claims.

I would argue that the "for" wording is much closer to the original purposes for the inclusion of the contract exclusion in private company D&O insurance policies – that is, an exclusion with the "for" wording makes it clear that insurers do not intend to pick up the insured company’s contractual liability, without extending the potential preclusive effect, for example, to tort claims alleging a different variety of wrongful conduct.

SEC Awards First Whistleblower Bounty: When the whistleblower bounty provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act were enacted, there were concerns that the provisions – allowing whistleblowers an award between 10% and 30% of the money collected when information provided by the whistleblower leads to an SEC enforcement action in which more than $1 million in sanctions is ordered – would encourage a flood of reports from would be whistleblowers who hope to cash in on the potentially rich rewards.

However, if the SEC’s first award under this program is any indication, some whistleblowers may decide to curb their enthusiasm. As reflected in the SEC’s August 21, 2012 press release (here), the agency has now made its first whistleblower award for the relatively modest amount of $50,000. According to the press release, “the award represents 30 percent of the amount collected in an SEC enforcement action against the perpetrators of the scheme, the maximum percentage payout allowed by the whistleblower law.”

The press release also explains that the whistleblower’s assistance led to a court ordering more than $1 million in sanctions, of which approximately $150,000 has been collected thus far. The court is considering whether to issue a final judgment against other defendants in the matter. Any increase in the sanctions ordered and collected will increase payments to the whistleblower.

There undoubtedly will be other awards, some of which undoubtedly will be larger. But for the first example, this modest award itself is unlikely provide much encouragement to prospective whistleblowers.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Most management liability insurance policies these days are written on a claims made basis - -that is, they cover claims that are first made during the policy period. But what determines when a claim is first made? A February 15, 2012 decision from the Western District of Texas and applying Texas law took a look at these in an insurance dispute arising under a condominium association insurance policy and concluded that under the facts presented the claim had first been made prior to the inception of the policy. The February 15 decision can be found here.

Background

Deer Oaks Office Park Association is an office park condo association that owns and maintains office condos in San Antonio. Deer Park was insured under a condo association insurance policy with a policy period from January 30, 2010 to January 30, 2011. The policy included a directors and officers liability insurance extension.

Prior to the policy’s inception, Thomas Jeneby, purchased a unit in the condo development, intended to use if for medical offices. He later alleged that he indicated his intent to install an elevator in the unit to facilitate patient access. Deer Oaks later declined to approve the elevator. Jeneby contended that Deer Oaks had made misrepresentations about his ability to install an elevator. He also had complaints about Deer Oaks’ condo maintenance.

Eventually, and during the policy period of the policy, Jeneby filed a lawsuit against Deer Oaks. Deer Oaks  submitted the lawsuit to its insurer. The insurer declined to provide a defense claiming that the claim had been made and that Deer Oaks had notice of the claim prior to the inception of the policy. In making this argument, Deer Oaks relied on a September 23, 2009 letter from Jeneby’s attorney to Deer Oaks, in which the attorney presented multiple complaints about Deer Park and attributing monetary losses to Deer Oaks.

Among other things, the letter stated that Jeneby is “adamant that he bout this building in reliance of the fact that he would be allowed to install an elevator.” The letter also complained about numerous maintenance problems. The stated that Jeneby’s disputes with Deer Oaks have been going on for two years “with expenses and loss of business continuing to increase.” Jeneby’s attorney concluded the letter by stating that “if I have not heard a response back from your client by October 2, 2009, then my client has instructed me to file suit in District Court.”

After the insurer declined to provide Deer Oaks with a defense against Jeneby’s lawsuit, Deer Oaks filed an action seeking a judicial declaration that the insurer was obligated to defend the claim. The parties to the insurance coverage dispute filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

The February 15 Ruling

In her February 15, 2012 ruling, Magistrate Judge Nancy Stein Nowak granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer and denied DeerOaks’ cross motion.

Deer Oaks had argued that the September 23, 2009 letter did not constitute a claim nor did it provide Deer Oaks with notice of claim. In making this argument, Deer Park relied on the fact that the policy did not define the term “Claim,” and also relied on International Insurance Company v. RSR, a 2005 decision from the Fifth Circuit, to argue that under the circumstances of this case, a “claim” means a “demand for money, property or legal remedy, and that because the letter did not explicitly demand, property or a legal remedy, it did not provide notice of Jeneby’s claims.

Magistrate Judge Nowak disagreed, saying that although Deer Oaks’ “use of available case law is resourceful,” its argument “fails.” She found that “the only reasonable interpretation” of the September 23, 2009 letter is that is “asserted a right to hold [Deer Oaks] liable for all of the costs Jeneby had spent and lost because of [Deer Oaks’] acts.” The letter’s “bottom line,” the Court said, was “if you do not comply with my demands, I will sue you.” The Court concluded that “under any construction, the letter constituted a claim,” and it also “constituted notice.” Because Deer Oaks “had notice before the effective date of the policy, the claim fell outside the policy and [the insurer] had no duty to defend.”

Discussion

To a certain extent, the value of this case may be limited by the fact that it involved a policy that did not define the term “claim.” Although there was a time many years ago when it was common for management liability policies to lack a definition of the term, in more recent years it has become very uncommon for management liability policies to be issued without a definition of the term “claim.” Indeed, the reason that many insurers incorporated the term in to their policies is that they found that without a policy definition of the term, courts were inclined to infer a very broad definition of the term.

As the Magistrate Judge herself noted in discussing the Firth Circuit case on which Deer Oaks sought to rely, the appellate court had sought to apply an interpretation of the term claim that was “most favorable to the insured.”  However, this dispute illustrates the fact that a broad definition of the term does not always work out in the policyholder’s favor. By applying a broad meaning to the term, the Magistrate Judge had little trouble determining that the letter sent prior to the policy’s inception was a “claim,” and therefore that the claim had first been made prior to the policy period.

The outcome of this case is very fact specific, turning as it does in part on the unusual absence of a definition of the term “claim” in the policy, as well as the other specific circumstances involved. There is one very peculiar aspect of the letter that does make this a troublesome case just the same. Oddly, the September 23, 2009 letter does not appear to demand anything from Deer Oaks. The letter recites Jeneby’s grievances, states that Jeneby has incurred costs, and threatens a lawsuit. But as far as I can tell, the letter does not expressly demand anything in particular from Deer Oaks.

The Magistrate, applying the Fifth Circuit case law, found that the term “claim” could include “the assertion of a right to hold the insured liable,” notwithstanding the absence of any explicit demand. But I wonder whether this letter would be sufficient to constitute a claim under the usual policy definition of a claim as “a demand for monetary damages or non-monetary relief.”

In any event, this case does illustrate the point that broad definitions and interpretations do not always work to the policyholder’s advantage, and that what the position that any particular policyholder may want to take in any specific case may well depend on the actual circumstances involved.

One final note. The court’s opinion, and apparently the parties’ arguments, seemed to focus on whether or not Deer Park had notice of claim. This seems odd to me. The issue from my perspective seems to me to be when the claim was first made. The question of notice seems beside the point.

A February 17, 2012 memorandum from the Traub Lieberman law firm discussing this ruling can be found here.

In Case You Missed It: If you did not see my blog post yesterday on the meaning of “relatedness” in the context of a D&O insurance policy, please refer here.

Yes, the Title Says it All, and, No, I Am Not Making This Up: I am quite sure that no reader of this blog would ever stoop so low as to click on a link to an article captioned “Japanese Fart Scrolls.” Certainly, no one here at The D&O Diary would stoop so low as to try to extract humor value from a web site entry entitled “Japanese Fart Scrolls.” Our motto: Dignity, always dignity.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Carriers generally contend that  insurance does not cover amounts that represent “disgorgement” or that are “restitutionary” in nature. But what makes a particular payment a “disgorgement”?  In a December 13, 2011 opinion (here), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Department, First Division, held that amounts Bear Stearns paid in settlement of SEC late trading and market timing  allegations represented a disgorgement that is not covered under its  insurance program.  Because the appellate court’s decision reversed the lower court ruling that the settlement payment did not constitute a disgorgement, the case provides an interesting perspective of the question of what makes a particular payment a “disgorgement” for purposes of determining insurance policy coverage.

Background

In 2006, the SEC notified Bear Stearns that the agency was investigating late trading and market timing activities units of Bear Stearns had undertaken for the benefit of clients of the company. The agency advised the company that it intended to seek injunctive relief and monetary sanctions of $720 million. Bear Stearns disputed the allegations, among other thing arguing that it did not share in the profits or benefit from the late trading, which generated only $16.9 million in revenue.

Bear Stearns ultimately made an offer of settlement and --without admitting or denying the agency “findings” – consented to the SEC’s entry of an Administrative Order, in which, among other things, Bear Stearns agree to pay a total of $215 million, of which $160 million was labeled “disgorgement” and $90 million as a penalty.

At the relevant time, Bear maintained a program of insurance that, according to the subsequent complaint, totaled $200 million. Bear Stearns sought to have the carriers in the program indemnify the company for the company’s settlement with the SEC. However, the carriers claimed that because the $160 million payment was labeled “disgorgement” in the Administrative Order, it did not represent a covered loss under the insurance policies.

In 2009, J.P. Morgan (into which Bear Stearns merged in 2008) filed an action seeking a judicial declaration that the insurers were obliged to indemnify the company for the amount of the $160 million payment in excess of the $10 million self insured retention. The company’s supplemental summons and amended complaint can be found here. The company argued that notwithstanding the Administrative Order’s reference to the amount as “disgorgement,” its payment to resolve the SEC investigation constituted compensatory damages and therefore represented a covered loss under the insurance program. In support of this contention, the company further argued that Bear Stearns’ earned only $16.9 million in revenue and virtually no profit from the late trading and market timing activities, and therefore the SEC settlement amount could not have represented a disgorgement. The carriers moved to dismiss the company’s declaratory judgment action

The Lower Court’s September 14, 2010 Order

In an order entered September 14, 2010, (here), New York (New York County) Supreme Court Charles E. Ramos denied the carriers’ motion to dismiss. He held that the Administrative Order’s use of the term “disgorgement” did not conclusively establish that the settlement amounts were precluded from coverage.

In reaching this conclusion, he noted that the Administrative Order “does not contain an explicit finding that Bear Stearns directly obtained ill-gotten gains or profited by facilitated these trading practices,” and he found that the provision of the Order alone “do not establish as a matter of law that Bear Stearns seeks coverage for losses that include the disgorgement of improperly acquired funds.” He also found that the Order does not, as would be required to preclude coverage “conclusively link the disgorgement to improperly acquired funds.”  He noted in that regard that “there are no findings that Bear Stearns directly generated profits for itself as the result” of the alleged misconduct and for him to so conclude now “would be to resolve disputed issues of material fact.”

Because he found that he was “unable to conclude, on the basis of the language of the Administrative Order alone that the disgorgement is specifically linked to the improperly acquired funds,” he rejected the insurers’ argument that they were entitled to dismissal.

The December 13 Appellate Decision

A December 13, 2011 opinion written by Justice Richard Andrias of  the N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court’s holding, granted the motions to dismiss and directed the entry of judgment in favor of the insurers. Contrary to Justice Ramos, the appellate court concluded that the sequence of events and allegations “read as a whole” are:

not reasonably susceptible to any interpretation other than that Bear Stearns knowingly and intentionally facilitated illegal late trading for preferred customers, and that the relief provisions of the SEC Order required disgorgement of funds gained through that illegal activity.

The Court went on to state that “the fact that the SEC did not itemize how it reached the agreed upon disgorgement figure does not raise an issue as to whether the disgorgement payment was in fact compensatory.” 

The Court further noted that in generating revenue of at least $16.9 million, “Bear Stearns knowingly and affirmatively facilitated an illegal scheme which generated hundreds of millions of dollars for collaborating parties and agreed to disgorge $160,000,000 in its offer of settlement.”  

Discussion         

Given that the SEC Administrative Order expressly identified the $160 million portion of the settlement as a “disgorgement,” it was always going to be an uphill battle to establish that the amount was not a disgorgement. The company argued essentially that the amount was not a disgorgement because the payment did not correspond to any specific pecuniary benefit that Bear Stearns received. The company argued in paying the amount it was not so much disgorging anything so much as it was paying damages. Justice Ramos concluded that the Administrative Order was not factual conclusive and that there was enough of an issue that dismissal was not appropriate.

The appellate court essentially concluded that the question was not so much whether Bear Stearns was disgorging an amount corresponding to its own specific pecuniary gain, but rather whether or not it was disgorging amounts that its “illegal scheme” had “generated.”  In effect, it was enough to show that there was a benefit from the illegal conduct, whether or not person making the disgorgement directly received that benefit.

This case is fairly fact specific, but it still a useful and interesting decision because it reaffirms the basic principles around the insurability of disgorgements and because it illustrates the issues to be considered in determining whether or not a specific amount represents a disgorgement or not.

All of that said, the company may still seek to appeal this decision to the New York Court of Appeals and so there may yet be more to be heard in connection with this case.

Chris Dolmetch’s December 13, 2011 Bloomberg article discussing the opinion can be found here.

Advisen Management Liability Journal: Although I suspect that most readers of this blog have already seen it, if you have not yet had a chance, you will want to take a look at the inaugural issue of the Advisen Management Liability Journal, which can be found here. The publication is attractive and interesting and it clearly represents a welcome addition to help in the exchange of ideas in the D&O insurance industry. My congratulations to everyone at Advisen for this inaugural issue, particularly my good friend, Susanne Sclafane, the publication’s senior editor. I am sure everyone in the industry is looking forward to future editions of this publication.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the thorniest D&O insurance coverage issues is the question of the applicability of a policy exclusion when coverage preclusive conduct has been alleged – but not proven. In a November 14, 2011 opinion (here), District of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken held that the mere allegations in the underlying claim, even if otherwise sufficient to constitute precluded “bad faith” within the meaning of a policy exclusion, were insufficient to preclude coverage where the underlying claim settled and the allegations were not proven. Though the specific exclusion involved is unusual, the dispute itself raises a number of interesting issues.

Background

Summit Accomodators, Inc. was in the business of facilitating so-called “1031 exchanges.” The company experienced liquidity issues in late 2008 and filed for bankruptcy. In June 2009, the trustee for the Summit Accomodators Liquidation Trust filed a civil action against Umpqua Bank, alleging that the bank knowingly aided and abetted the principals of Summit in the perpetration of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

Among other things, the trustee’s complaint alleged that “highest level of management at Umpqua Bank … became fully aware of the Ponzi scheme and the principals’ embezzlement. …Yet [the bank officials] continued to actively encourage and materially assist the Summit principals.” The bank is alleged to have aided the scheme by providing banking services including loans and by encouraging bank customers to use Summit’s services.  Additional lawsuits later arose. The suits were later consolidated and ultimately settled.

At the time the claims arose, the bank was insured under a D&O liability insurance policy. The insurer funded the bank’s defense in the litigation. However, the insurer disputed that the policy provided coverage for the underlying settlement. Ultimately, the insurer contributed 41% of the settlement amount. The bank sued the insurer for breach of contract (refer here for the bank’s complaint), seeking to recover the balance of the settlement amount from the insurer. The insurer answered the complaint and also counterclaimed for return of the 41% of the settlement that it had funded, arguing that there was no coverage under the policy for the settlement (refer here for the insurer’s Answer and Counterclaim).

In arguing that the policy precluded coverage for the settlement, the insurer relied on Policy Section V (illegal profit/payment exclusion):

The Insurer shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss, other than Defense Costs, in connection with any Claim arising out of or in any way involving:

1. any Insured gaining, in fact, any profit, remuneration, or financial advantage to which the Insured was not legally entitled;

2. payment by the Company of inadequate or excessive consideration in connection with the purchase of Company securities; or

3. conflicts of interest, engaging in self-dealing, or acting in bad faith. 

In disputing coverage, the insurer relied principally on subsection 3 of this provision, the “bad faith” exclusion.

The insurer moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the applicability of the bad faith exclusion could be determined “based solely on the undisputed terms of the complaints in the underlying litigation against the bank.” (The insurer’s memorandum in support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings can be found here). The bank filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The November 14 Order

In her November 14, order, Judge Aiken denied the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted in part the bank’s cross-motion for summary judgment. In making her ruling, Judge Aiken did not construe the phrase “acting in bad fait,” or determine whether the underlying allegations constituted “bad faith,” as she deemed it sufficient to determine whether or not the exclusion could be triggered by the mere allegations in the underlying litigation.

The insurer had argued that the egregious allegations of the bank’s complicity in the alleged Ponzi scheme were sufficient to trigger the exclusion. In support of its contention that allegations alone were sufficient, the insurer argued that the reference in the policy’s definition of Wrongful Act to an “actual or alleged” act, error or omission was incorporated into all of the policy exclusions, setting up an “allegations alone” trigger for all exclusions. The insurer also contrasted subpart 1 of the exclusion at issue, which expressly required an “in fact” determination that that the precluded conduct occurred, with the “bad faith” subpart, which has no such “in fact” determination requirement.

Judge Aiken rejected these arguments.  First, she found that, contrary to the insurer’s “surreptitious interpretation,” the exclusion “does not actually state that it is triggered by allegations of bad faith,” and that “the word ‘alleged’ is at no point used within the exclusion.” She added that “in its attempt to avoid its contractual duty to indemnify,” the insurer “erroneously substitutes the term ‘alleged act’” in its interpretation of the exclusion.

Judge Aiken noted further that when the insurer “intended the policy exclusions to be activated by mere allegations, it did so expressly within the actual text of the policy.” She noted in that regard that both the policy’s Pollution Exclusion and its Bodily/Personal Injury and Property Damage Exclusion both expressly reference “alleged” activity or conduct as triggering the exclusion.

Finally, she noted that “at the very least,” the insurer’s “imprecise drafting allows the Exclusion to have more than one reasonable interpretation,” and accordingly she was required to construe the policy in favor of coverage.

Discussion

A recurring problem D&O insurers face is the question of their coverage obligations in circumstances  involving alleged egregious misconduct, when the misconduct has not yet been the subject of formal proof. Two scandals currently on the front pages of the business sections illustrate this issue. The newspapers are full of stories suggesting that MF Global improperly applied customer funds. Olympus Corp. has actually admitted that it misrepresented certain transaction costs in order to mask certain investment losses.

The general movement in most D&O insurance policies in recent years has been toward an “after adjudication” standard for conduct exclusions, meaning that the exclusionary language does not preclude coverage unless and until there has been a judicial determination that the precluded conduct has occurred. To the extent that the conduct exclusions in the MF Global or Olympus insurance policies apply only after an “adjudication,” the exclusions in those policies would not presently operate to preclude coverage notwithstanding the allegations or admissions involving the companies. Indeed, because so few directors and officers liability cases actually go to trial, there are rarely “adjudications” and so the preclusive effect of the conduct exclusions is rarely triggered.

I refer to these contemporary examples to highlight the fact that, at least as most current D&O insurance policies are written, D&O insurers are often called upon to provide coverage even in the circumstances involving egregious underlying allegations. Clearly, in the Umpqua Bank case, the insurer was deeply troubled by the allegations in the underlying complaint of the bank’s complicity in the alleged Ponzi scheme. But as disturbing as the trustee’s allegations may be, the mere fact that these things were alleged does not mean that any of these things actually happened or that they happened the way the trustee alleged.

The exclusion at issue in the Umpqua Bank case contained no “adjudication” requirement. It did not even, as the insurer pointed out, contain an “in fact” provision requiring that the precluded conduct occurred.  The absence of these types of provisions allowed the interpretation of the exclusionary language that the carrier took in this case, and makes the carrier's position not unreasonable.

However, the exclusions’ lack of a specific trigger does not necessarily mean that mere allegations alone are sufficient to trigger the exclusion.Many (if not most) directors and officers liability complaints contain allegations asserting  “conflicts of interest, engaging in self-dealing, or acting in bad faith.” If those types of mere allegations alone were sufficient to preclude policy coverage, then the exclusion’s preclusive effect would reach so broadly that it would swallow up much of the intended coverage for which the policyholder purchased the policy in the first place. Certainly, it would seem that if the insurer was to narrow coverage so dramatically for mere allegations, then it ought to do so explicitly.

Indeed the potentially preclusive scope of this policy exclusion may explain why the exclusion is relatively unusual. Many purchasers and their advisors would find it better to avoid policies with this type of language, particularly given this insurer’s formulation of the language.

By the same token, the potential breadth of the exclusion’s preclusive effect is yet another reason to support Judge Aiken’s narrow interpretation. If the parties had intended mere allegations of  “conflicts of interest, engaging in self-dealing, or acting in bad faith” to preclude indemnity coverage, then the exclusion would have expressly included the word “alleged,” as was the case with the two other policy exclusions Judge Aiken referenced in her opinion. The presence of the word “alleged” in the other exclusions and its absence in the “bad faith” exclusion, at a minimum, allows, as Judge Aiken found, “more than one reasonable interpretation” of the question whether or not mere allegations are sufficient to trigger the “bad faith” exclusion.

Readers who are wondering why the name Umpqua Bank sounds familiar may recall that in an earlier post (here), I wrote about the derivative lawsuit that the shareholders of Umpqua’s holding company filed against company officials after t  62% of shareholders voted “no” in the advisory shareholder vote on the company’s 2010 executive compensation plan. The claims asserted in the lawsuit rely directly on the negative note.

FDIC Files Another Failed Bank Lawsuit: And speaking of bank litigation -- the FDIC has filed another lawsuit against the former directors and officers of a failed bank. On November 18, 2011, the FDIC filed an action in the Western District of Washington against eleven former directors and officers of Westsound Bank, which failed on May 8, 2009. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

In its complaint, the FDIC seeks to recover at least $15 million in principal losses the bank suffered on 28 commercial loans. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to properly supervise the bank’s lending operations. The complaint alleges that certain loans were approved in violation of the bank’s lending policies and in disregard of regulatory warnings.

The complaint further alleges that 21 fraudulent loans to the Russian/Ukrainian community would not have been made if the defendants had heeded regulatory warnings and properly supervised lending operations. Finally, the complaint seeks to recover losses on preferential loans that were made to directors and director-led companies.

The FDIC’s complaint against the former Westsound Bank officials is the 17^th the agency has filed against former directors and officers of failed banks as part of the current wave of bank failures. Like many of the suits the FDIC previously filed, this one came well over two years after the bank’s failure. The sheer number and timing of the bank failures during the current wave (which now total over 400) and the FDIC’s deliberate litigation approach suggests that there are many other lawsuits to come in the months and years ahead.

The FDIC recently updated its professional liability lawsuits page on its website to reflect that the agency has approved an increased number of lawsuits. The updated page (here) shows that as of November 14, 2011, the FDIC has authorized suits in connection with 37 failed institutions against 340 individuals for D&O liability with damage claims of at least $7.6 billion. Though the FDIC has authorized lawsuits involving 37 institutions, it has filed only 17 lawsuits involving 16 institutions so far – suggesting that there are many lawsuits yet to come, just taking into account the lawsuits authorized so far.

With more lawsuits likely to be authorized in the future, and with banks continuing to fail (two more were closed this past Friday evening), it seem probable that the number of lawsuits involving former directors and officers of failed banks will continue to accumulate for years to come.

Cybersecurity Disclosure: In the quarterly Advisen webinar last week, one of the topics discussed was the SEC’s new disclosure guidelines regarding cybersecurty risks and exposures. Readers interested in learning more about the SEC’s guidelines will want to refer to the November 17, 2011 memorandum from John Nicholson of the Pillsbury law firm, entitled “Accounting for Cybersecurity: SEC Guidance in Disclosures to Investors and Regulators” (here). The memo includes a detailed discussion of the new guidelines and the challenges that companies may face in trying to comply with the guidelines.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An inevitable part of the current wave of bank failures has been the FDIC’s filing of lawsuits against former directors and officers of the failed institutions. And though the FDIC’s initiation of this litigation has been gradual, the lawsuits have now started to accumulate in significant numbers. And just as this FDIC litigation was perhaps inevitable once the banks started to faile, so too it was also perhaps inevitable that the FDIC lawsuits would be accompanied by D&O insurance coverage litigation.

As discussed below, the failed bank insurance coverage lawsuits are now starting to arrive. If the initial cases are any indication, one of the main coverage battlegrounds will be the typical D&O insurance policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion. Specifically, the question will be whether the FDIC as receiver pursuing the failed bank’s claim against the bank’s former directors and officers is acting as an “insured” under the D&O policy so as to preclude coverage under the policy.

First up in this analysis is Michigan Heritage Bank of Farmington Hills, Michigan, which failed on August 29, 2009 (about which refer here). As discussed in greater detail here, on August 8, 2011, the FDIC, as the bank’s receiver, filed a lawsuits in the Eastern District of Michigan against a single former officer of the bank.

What followed next is that on November 1, 2011, Michigan Heritage’s D&O insurer filed an action in the Eastern District of Michigan seeking a judicial declaration that there is no coverage for the underlying lawsuit or for the bank officer’s defense expenses under the bank’s D&O policy. A copy of the insurer’s declaratory judgment complaint can be found here.

Among other things, the carrier seeks a judicial declaration that the policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion precludes coverage for the underlying lawsuit. The insurer’s argument is that as the bank’s receiver, the FDIC is asserting the bank’s own claims and is seeking to recover the bank’s losses. Therefore, the carrier contends, the FDIC’s lawsuit is a claim “by, on behalf of, or at the behest of” the bank, and as the bank and the defendant loan officer are both insureds under the policy, the policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion precludes coverage.

A very similar sequence has also followed with respect to Westernbank, of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, which failed on April 30, 2010. As reflected here, on December 17, 2010, the FDIC, through its outside counsel, sent a letter to Westernbank’s D&O insurer asserting claims against the bank’s former directors and officers.

Westernbank’s directors and officers , in turn, on October 6, 2011, filed an action in local Puerto Rico court seeking judicial declaration that the FDIC’s claim is covered under the bank’s D&O policy. The complaint, which is in Spanish, can be found here. According to an October 14, 2011 press release from the direcrors and officers' counsel, the complaint seeks a judicial declaration with respect to “the controversial and critical question whether the FDIC-R can be deemed an insured under the Policy so as to excuse [the carrier] from providing coverage.”

Though these declaratory judgment actions have only just been filed, they are in many ways a vestige of an earlier time. As I discussed in a blog post way back in August 2008, when the current bank wave was only just starting to unfold, the question whether the Insured vs. Insured exclusion precluded coverage for claims by the FDIC as receiver against former directors and officers of failed banks was hotly contested during the S&L crisis. As I said in my earlier post, and as appears likely now, the Insured vs. Insured exclusion could be a critical part of the failed bank insurance coverage litigation during the current round of bank failures as well.  

During the S&L crisis, where the FDIC had its greatest success in overcoming the Insured vs. Insured exclusion was where it was able to argue successfully that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion precluded coverage only with respect to collusive lawsuits. Because it was able to show that its claims and lawsuits were fully adversarial, it was able to establish that the exclusion did not apply.

The FDIC was not uniformly successful in arguing that the exclusion only precluded collusive claims, and there has in fact been some intervening case law to the effect that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion applies even when the underlying claim is not collusive.

It will in any event be interesting to see how these coverage cases develop. The one thing that seems certain is that as the FDIC failed bank litigation continues to accumulate, so too will the related coverage litigations. Many of the related coverage suits likely will also involve these same Insured vs. Insured issues.

Another issue that is likely to be litigated in coverage cases arising out of FDIC failed bank litigation is the enforceabilty of the so-called Regulatory Exclusion, which when present in the D&O policy precludes coverage for claims brought by the FDIC and other regulators. Not all policies implicated in the bank failures have these exclusions, but where they are present they are likely to be relied upon by the carriers to contest coverage. It is probably worth noting that these issues were fully litigated during the S&L crisis and the courts generally found that the regulatory exclusion precluded coverge for FDIC claims. My prior blog post about the regulatory exclusion can be found here.

A good summary of the D&O insurance coverage issues involved in FDIC failed bank litigation can be found here.

Special thanks to the several loyal readers who sent me links to ths source documents referenced above.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The current global financial crisis may result in "unprecedented levels of litigation" that "will either serve to identify ‘weak links’ in the chain of participants who originate, appraise, and service collateral and underwrite, manage, insure, rate and sell securities," or it will serve to "highlight where the market may have underappreciated certain risks or failed to appreciate certain circumstances," according to a paper featured in a March 17, 2009 post (here) on the Harvard Law School blog.

The paper, entitled "Legal and Economic Issues in Litigation Arising From the 2007-2008 Credit Crisis," was written by Babson College Professor Jennifer Bethel, Harvard Law Professor Allen Ferrell, and Babson Professor Gang Hu, can be found here.

The paper explores the "economic and legal causes and consequences of the 2007-2008 credit crisis." In particular, the paper examines "the risks that can arise from financial and technology innovations and losses that are uniquely related to correlated events in the setting of loan markets." The paper sets for a detailed and interesting overview of the economic and financial causes that contributed to the current credit crisis.

The paper also notes that "the credit crisis is not solely an economic phenomenon, but a legal one as well." The paper discusses a number of different types of lawsuits that have arisen, but focuses in particular on securities class action lawsuits against public companies, which the paper describes as "by far the most important litigation likely to arise out of the credit crisis."

The paper asserts that "plaintiffs that bring Rule 10b-5 class action lawsuits will face substantial challenges," and notes in particular that the securities plaintiffs will have to navigate around three basic legal principles: "(i) there can be no ‘fraud by hindsight’; (ii) there can be no actionable disclosure deficiency with respect to information the market already knew (the ‘truth on the market’ defense); and (iii) plaintiffs must establish loss causation for their claims."

First with respect to the "fraud by hindsight" concern, the paper notes that it will not be enough for plaintiffs to show that there have been economic losses; they will also have to show that the adverse developments were reasonably foreseeable at the time the supposedly disclosures were made. The authors note that

Whether a failure of certain market participants to provide detailed disclosures regarding the implications of an event – the first full national fall in housing prices since World War II in conjunction with a dramatic and increasingly global crisis – from which the actors themselves suffered huge losses is actionable will likely prove an important stumbling block, in our judgment, for a number of actions being brought.

The authors add that "the presence of disclosure failures and materiality thereof must be assessed in light of what was known at the time of the disclosures without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, even if losses occur."

Second, with respect to the "truth on the market" defense, the authors question whether the target companies in fact had "special knowledge that was not known by the market at large." The authors suggest that this may have been a situation where the market was at least as informed, or at least no less informed, than the defendants on relevant issues.

Third, the authors suggest that "loss causation is likely to be a challenging litigation issue for plaintiffs, because market prices, especially of financial-sector securities, declined overall."

The few dismissal rulings that have accumulated so far provide at least some support for the authors’ theories. In at least two cases where dismissal motions have been granted with prejudice – the NovaStar Financial case (about which refer here) and the Impac Mortgage case (refer here) – the courts seemed particularly concerned that the defendant companies had been caught in an industry-wide or even economy-wide downturn. Even if the courts did not use the price phrase "fraud by hindsight," the concept was seemingly implied in the rulings.

At the same time, however, there have also been significant cases where courts have had no difficulty denying dismissal motions – for example, New Century Financial (refer here) and Countrywide (here) – in which the courts have expressed open outrage regarding the alleged misrepresentations and omissions. The authors’ analysis seems deficient to me to the extent it fails to recognize the possibility that at least some courts’ judgments potentially may be affected by this sense of outrage, particularly over the extent of damage done, to investors and to the economy. (A list of all of the subprime dismissals and dismissal motion denials can be accessed here.)

In addition, given the authors overall hypothesis that plaintiffs will face substantial hurdles in pursuing these cases, it seems a noteworthy and even odd omission that the authors detailed and exhaustive paper neglects to even mention the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Tellabs case could also represent a significant hurdle for the plaintiffs. In that regard, the Tellabs decision has generally proven instrumental in those cases where dismissal motions have been granted thus far.

Finally, with respect to the authors’ suggestion that loss causation issues may prove critical, I note that in a prior post (here) I discussed the challenge that plaintiffs may face where they have sued for supposed economic losses on securities that continue to provide scheduled interest payments on time and in full. These arguments may be particularly relevant in claims brought by mortgage-backed securities investors who have sued the securities issuers and the securities offering underwriters.

Defenseless: Laura Pendergast-Holt, the erstwhile Chief Investment Officer of Stanford Financial Group, has a few legal problems to sort out. First, she is a defendant in an SEC enforcement proceeding involving the Stanford Group. Second, she was arrested on February 26, 2009 and charged with obstructing a proceeding before an agency of the United States. Third, she has been named as one of the defendants in numerous civil lawsuits brought by irate Stanford group investors. (A complete list of Stanford-related litigation can be accessed here.)

Ms. Pendergast-Holt clearly needs the services of an attorney. Unfortunately, she is also party to one more lawsuit, one in which she is the plaintiff, and which suggests the challenges she may have in providing for her legal representation in the above matters.

On March 17, 2009, she filed a lawsuit in Texas (Dallas County) District Court against Stanford Group’s directors and officers’ liability insurer, alleging that the insurer has "failed and refused to provide a defense so that she can defend herself in the SEC action, the civil class action, and in the criminal matter." A copy of her Original Petition can be found here.

Ms .Pendergast-Holt seeks a judicial declaration of coverage. Arguing that she has no way of satisfying any self-insured retention, she also seeks a "declaration that any self-insured retention or deductible be waived, held inapplicable or enjoined." She also alleges breach of contract and bad faith. She seeks damages estimated to exceed $5 million, as well as punitive damages estimated to exceed $40 million.

The bases on which the insurer has declined coverage for Ms. Pendergast-Holt’s defense are not specified in her Original Petition. While the scandal surrounding Stanford Group is notorious, as yet there have been no verdicts and no guilty pleas, nor to my knowledge have there even been any admissions. Whatever the facts ultimately prove to be, nothing has as yet been determined. These considerations may prove relevant to the coverage dispute, for example, with respect to the potential applicability of policy exclusions. On the other hand, representations made in connection with Stanford’s policy application (particularly with respect to Stanford’s finances) may also figure into the insurer’s coverage position.

A March 18, 2009 AmLaw Daily post regarding the coverage lawsuit can be found here. Hat tip to the Courthouse News Service (here) for a copy of the Original Petition.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In prior posts (here and here), I discussed two recent decisions in which courts held that D&O insurance coverage was precluded for settlements the insureds entered without first obtaining the insurers’ consent as required under the applicable policies. An August 19, 2008 Second Circuit opinion (here) addressed the related question of what happens when the insured seeks but the insurer withholds settlement consent.

Based on the somewhat strained circumstances involved, the Second Circuit affirmed a jury verdict holding two excess carriers liable under their policies to fund their portion of a settlement, even though the insured had requested settlement consent on a Sunday evening at 10:00 PM and givn the carriers only eleven hours to respond.

Background

The underlying claim arose out of the Globalstar Telecommunications securities litigation (about which refer here). After the corporate defendants sought bankruptcy protection, the case went forward solely as to Globalstar’s former CEO, Bernard Schwartz. There were various pretrial mediation and settlement conferences, but the case did not settle and proceeded to trial.

The first four layers of Globalstar’s D&O insurance program consisted of a primary $10 million layer and three successive excess layers of $5 million each. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs’ latest settlement demand was $15 million. The primary insurer’s last pretrial settlement offer was $5 million. The plaintiffs reportedly warned that once trial began, their demand would rise to $20 to $25 million.

After two weeks of trial and on the day before he was scheduled to testify, Schwartz agreed to a $20 million settlement. Schwartz’s defense counsel sought the insurers’ consent to enter into the settlement. The request for consent was sent via email on a Sunday night at 10:00 pm. According to the Second Circuit’s later opinion, Schwartz’s defense counsel "offered to discuss the reasonableness of that figure later than night or between 8:45 am and 9:00 am on Monday." Over the next few days, all four insurers refused to consent. The court entered judgment approving the settlement. Schwartz later funded the $20 million settlement with a personal check.

The Coverage Litigation 

Schwartz then sued the four insurers. Schwartz sued the primary carrier for bad faith refusal to settle and for breach of contract. Schwartz sued the three excess carriers for breach of contract. (The third layer excess carrier was involved because at the time Schwartz agreed to settle the case, defense fees had eroded the first $3 million of the primary policy, so the $20 million settlement implicated the third layer excess policy.) The second and third layer excess insurers also cross claimed against the primary insurer alleging bad faith, on the theory that as excess insurers they were equitably subrogated to Schwartz’s bad faith claims against the primary insurer.

Before the coverage lawsuit went to trial, both the primary insurer and the first level excess insurer settled with Schwartz by paying their full policy limits. The coverage trial went forward on Schwarz’s claims against the second and third level excess insurers, and on these two excess insurers’ cross claims against the primary insurer.

Following trial, the jury found in favor of Schwartz and awarded damages of $5 million against the second level excess insurer, and $4 million against the third level excess insurer (the full amount that Schwartz had sought).

On the excess insurers’ cross claims against the primary insurer, the jury awarded the second level excess insurer damages of $2 million and the third level excess insurer damages of $3 million. However, the jury also specifically found that the primary insurer had not acted in "gross disregard" of Schwartz’s rights. In a post-trial ruling, the district court dismissed the excess insurers’ cross claims, holding that New York law applied to the cross claims and that under New York law there could be no recovery for bad faith in the absence of a finding of "gross disregard."

The Second Circuit Opinion 

On appeal, the excess insurers argued "Schwartz’s failure to satisfy the condition precedent of consent to settlement absolved them of their contractual duties." The excess insurers contended that Schwartz’s settlement request "gave them mere hours (over a Sunday night and Monday morning) to decide whether to settle." The Second Circuit characterized these arguments as contending that the 11-hour period represented "the interval in which the Excess Insurers had to assess – for the first time – the risks, opportunities and settlement demands at play."

The Second Circuit, in an opinion by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, said that "the insurers’ opportunity to consider settlement extended over a prolonged course of consultation, monitoring and negotiation, so that the settlement was in the nature of anticlimax rather than surprise." The Second Circuit found the jury appropriately considered this evidence and concluded that the excess insurers "had an adequate opportunity to consider and evaluate the settlement opportunities; that $20 million was a reasonable sum; and that [the excess insurers] unreasonably withheld consent." The Second Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in Schwartz’s favor.

The Second Circuit also rejected the excess insurers’ argument that the trial court inappropriately applied New York law to the excess insurers’ equitably subrogated bad faith claims against the primary insurer.(Under New York law, but not under California law, a finding of "gross disregard" is required to support the imposition of bad faith liability.) Among other things, the excess insurers argued that it was not appropriate to apply California law to Schwartz’s breach of contract claims but New York law to their equitably subrogated bad faith claims.

The Second Circuit found that applicable choice of law principles allowed different jurisdictions’ laws to apply to different aspects of the same dispute. The Second Circuit also rejected the excess insurers’ argument that application of different law to their cross-claims inappropriately deprived them of the same right of recovery as the person to whom they were equitably subrogated.

Discussion 

The most critical fact in these strained circumstances may be that in the absence of the insurers’ consent Schwartz accepted personal liability for the settlement and funded it out of his own assets. That step substantially undercut the insurers’ ability to argue that the settlement amount was unreasonable, and by extension that their withholding of consent was reasonable.

These circumstances nevertheless present some very troublesome aspects. One particularly questionable part is the settlement consent request that was presented in an email at 10 pm on a Sunday evening with an 11-hour response time. However one might characterize this communication, it was hardly calculated to provide the insurers with what most people would consider a reasonable opportunity to consider the request and respond.

In seemingly overlooking the unorthodox nature of these communications, the Second Circuit placed great weight on the excess insurers’ prior attendance at mediation and settlement conferences, and at trial. During these proceedings there were opportunities to settle the case for $15 million. To be sure, the plaintiffs had indicated that the settlement demand would rise once trial started. The second and third level excess insurers had demanded that the primary and first level excess insurers settle the case for the $15 million amount. Had the case settled for that amount, the second level insurer would only have paid a portion of its limits and the third level excess insurer’s limit would not have been implicated at all.

Under these circumstances it seems that what this case really was about was the question of who ought bear the costs of the $20 million settlement. In that regard, it is significant to note that the jury specifically awarded substantial damages in favor of the second and third level excess insurers against the primary insurer, notwithstanding the jury’s finding that the primary insurer had not acted in "gross disregard" of Schwartz’s interests.

The amount of the cross claim awards seems to be explained by the fact that at the time of the settlment, the first $3 milion of the primary policy had been eroded by defense expense. The sum of the $7 million remaining on the primary policy, the $5 million under the first level excess policy, and the first $3 million of the second level excess policy collectively represented the $15 million amount at which the case could have been settled before trial. The jury shifted to the primary insurer responsibiltiy for the incremental $5 million difference between the $15 million for which the case could have been settled before trial and the $20 million for which it actually settled, by awarding damages of $2 million to the second level excess insurer and $3 million to the third level excess insurer.

However, the trial court negated these cross claim damage award in its post-trial choice of law decision, which the Second Circuit affirmed. I am insufficiently steeped in "decapage" and other rarified choice of law principles to have any informed opinion about the merits of the Second Circuit’s analysis of the law to be applied to excess insurers’ cross claims. The excess insurers undoubtedly are frustrated that they were found liable to Schwarz (to whom they were equitably subrogated) under California law, but that the primary insurer was not liable to them (despite the jury verdict in their favor on the cross claims) because New York law rather than California law applied to their cross claims.

The net effect is that the excess insurers are left holding the responsibility for amounts that the jury assigned to the primary carrier. The primary insurer of course would that in the absence of a finding of "gross disregard" it would be inappropriate for it to have to bear liability for these amounts.

In the end, the outcome of this case may be best understood as the result of the strained circumstances. It should probably be emphasized that demanding insurer consent on a Sunday evening with an 11-hour deadline does not, shall we say, represent an advisable approach. Of course there may be sufficiently pressing circumstances (including, it should be noted, during the constraints of trial) where rushed communications may be unavoidable. But in general, complete, timely and business-like communications are to be preferred, and are likelier to avoid disputes with the carrier.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a link to the Second Circuit opinion.

When Introducing Her, McCain Did Say Something Like "And Now For Something Completely Different": Prior to this past Friday, the only person I had every heard of with the last name of "Palin" was Michael Palin, of Monty Python fame.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A June 18, 2008 opinion (here) by Judge Gerald Lynch in the coverage litigation between former Refco directors and officers and one of the company’s excess D&O insurers presents a veritable conflagration of policy application issues, including perennial questions concerning warranties, severability, and imputation, as well as a host of related issues arising from the policy procurement process itself.

Background: In the year preceding Refco’s ill-fated August 2005 IPO, Refco had maintained a $30 million D&O liability insurance program (the 2004-2005 program). In connection with its IPO, Refco obtained a total of $70 million of D&O insurance for the period from August 11, 2005 to August 11, 2006 (the 2005-2006 program). Both programs were arranged in multiple layers, with a primary carrier and several excess carriers.

In connection with placement of the 2004-2005 program, Refco completed the primary carrier’s insurance application (the “Application”). In addition, one of the excess insurers (and the ultimate litigant in the coverage dispute) required that the company submit a Warranty Letter on behalf of all insureds, affirming that no person for whom the insurance was proposed is “cognizant of any fact, circumstance, situation, act, error or omissions which … might afford grounds for any Claim.”

The Warranty Letter, submitted to the excess carrier on January 21, 2005, was signed by Phillip Bennett, Refco’s CEO. It later was revealed that Refco had an undisclosed $430 million receivable due from an entity Bennett controlled. The company subsequently collapsed, and Bennett, among other has pled guilty to an array of criminal offenses.  

At least as appears from the June 18 opinion, there were no additional applications or warranties in connection with the placement of the 2005-2006 program.

Following Refco’s October 2005 collapse, the company’s directors and officers were the target of extensive litigation, for which they sought defense expense coverage under the 2005-2006 program. The primary and first layer excess carriers advanced their entire limits (totaling $17.5 million) in payment of defense expense, subject to repayment of it is determined that there is no coverage under the policies.

The Coverage Denial:

The second level excess insurer, by letter dated March 6, 2006, denied coverage for the claims under its 2005-2006 policies. As the basis for its denial, the second level excess insurer relied on the representations in the Warranty letter and Refco’s failure to answer question 12(b) on the primary carrier’s Application (which asked whether any proposed insured was “aware of any fact, circumstance or situation” that might give rise to a claim).

The second level excess insurer also relied on a “Knowledge Exclusion” that was included in the insurer’s policy when issued in March 2006 (which was at or about the same time as the insurer issue its coverage denial). The Knowledge Exclusion essentially provides that the second level excess insurer is not liable for any loss (including defense expense) “in connection with any claim arising out of, based upon or attributable to any claim, fact or circumstance disclosed or required to be disclosed” in Question 12(b) of the Application.

The Coverage Litigation:

In May 2007, the second level excess insurer initiated an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court seeking a judicial declaration of noncoverage under its 2005-2006 policy, largely for reasons enumerated in its March 2006 denial letter. Several of the individual Refco officers and directors filed an answer and counterclaim, among other things seeking an injunction compelling the second level insurer to advance defense fees. The bankruptcy court entered an order in October 2007 requiring the insurer to advance defense expense, which the insurer has now done, as a result of which its $10 million limit is now depleted.

The second level excess carrier refilled its declaratory judgment complaint in federal district court, again seeking a judicial declaration of noncoverage. The individuals refilled their counterclaims, seeking a determination of coverage. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which were the subject of the June 18 opinion.

The June 18 Opinion

In reviewing the court’s rulings, it is important to note that the summary judgment motions were filed pre-discovery. This unusual procedural posture was a critical factor in the court’s decisions process, as the court, pursuant to established authority, was reluctant to interject merits-based rulings where further discovery might provide additional factual context.

The insureds argued that the Warranty Letter had been submitted in connection with the placement of the 2004-2005 program and therefore was not a part of the second level carrier’s 2005-2006 policy. The insurer for its part argued that the Warranty Letter did relate to the placement of the 2005-2006 policy and that in any event it relied on the Warranty Letter when making underwriting decisions in connection with the 2005-2006 policy. The insurer submitted an affidavit from its underwriter in support of its assertions. Judge Lynch concluded that “genuine issues of material fact abound as to whether the Warranty Letter is properly part of the 2005-2006 [policy].”

The insureds further argued that in any event, the applicable “severability provision” bars the insurer from imputing Bennett’s knowledge to the other insureds and therefore the Warranty Letter could not serve as a basis to deny coverage to them. The severability provision was contained in an Endorsement to the Primary Policy. The insurer argued that the severability provision restricted the imputation of knowledge exclusively to statements in the primary insurer’s Application, and therefore it had no bearing on the second level excess insurer’s ability to rely on the Warranty Letter, which was not part of the Application. Judge Lynch agreed, and he therefore denied the insureds’ summary judgment motion based on the application severability provision.

Judge Lynch similarly rejected the second level excess insurer’s attempt to rely on Bennett’s failure Question 12(b) on the Application. Judge Lynch found that the insurer’s issuance of its 2005-2006 policy without challenging the omission of an answer to Question 12(b) was a waiver of any objection to coverage on that basis.

With respect to the second level excess carrier’s attempt to rely on the so-called Knowledge Exclusion to deny coverage, the insureds argued that the insurer’s coverage binder had not listed the Knowledge Exclusion as an endorsement that was to be added to the policy, nor had the company’s broker authorized the addition of the Knowledge Exclusion. The insureds argued that the insurer had “unilaterally changed the terms of the 2005-2006 [policy] after learning of the events that would give rise to a claim.”

The insurer countered that the company’s broker had authorized the addition of the exclusion. The insureds contended this response “fundamentally misconstrues” the meaning of the broker’s communications. These arguments clearly reflect the detailed particulars and disputed meaning of communications between the broker and the underwriter, which Judge Lynch found suffices to raise a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the issue.

The insureds further arged that the severability of exclusions language in the primary policy precluded application of the Knowledge Exclusion to them. They argued that even if Bennett’s knowledge triggered the exclusion, the excluded state of mind could not be imputed to them. Judge Lynch found that the severability of exclusions provision in the primary policy applied only to the exclusions in the primary policy, and not to the Knowledge Exclusion which was found only in the second level excess insurer’s policy.

Discussion:

The court’s opinion does not represent a definitive conclusion either for or against coverage under the policy. Indeed, at its most basic level, the court’s opinion merely represents a determination to allow discovery as a prelude to a later merits-based determination.

But the opinion raises too many questions about the potential availability to insurers of coverage defenses, and about the limitations of insureds’ policy protections, for the opinion not to raise a host of concerns. The concerns fall into two basic categories – that is, the concerns that are substantive and the concerns that are procedural.

The substantive concerns are numerous and relate to many of highest profile issues in the D&O insurance arena, including the use, applicability and duration of warranties and warranty letters; the extent of protection afforded to “innocent insureds” by severability provisions (including both application severability and exclusion severability); and the extent to which insureds may (or may not) be able rely on policy protections in the primary policy to preclude the assertion of policy defenses by an excess insurer.

The procedural concerns are perhaps equally significant for practitioners in the field. Judge Lynch’s opinion underscores the potential importance of communications between broker and underwriter and is a reminder of the opportunities for and dangers of ambiguities in communications (or, as the insureds would argue, supposed ambiguities). Perhaps these issues will get sorted out in later decisions in the case, but current state of play in the case raises troubling concerns about the pitfalls of the policy procurement process while providing little guidance (except by negative inference) about how those pitfalls might be avoided in the future.

There may yet be further ruling in the case that will clarify the issues. But the opinion nevertheless highlights that many of the issues the industry has been struggling with for the last decade – including in particular severability and imputation issues – remain very much alive and continue to pose significant concerns, and indeed may have edges that have not previously been addressed or even contemplated.

Two final observations about the case. The first is that the parties appear to have exhausted at least $27.5 million of the $70 million tower on defense expense alone, which is yet another reminder of the extraordinary expense involved in catastrophic type claims (a topic I discussed in a recent post, here).

The other observation is that yet again a critical D&O coverage decision has arisen in a case involving defenses raised by a follow-form excess insurer (see my prior comments on this issue here). The issues involved here underscore the myriad of difficulties that potentially can arise as losses escalate through a multilayer program. I do not mean to suggest any views one way or the other about the merits of the excess carrier’s positions in this case. Indeed, given the circumstances involved in this claim, it is unsurprising that the insurers might raise questions. Nevertheless, the specific issues in dispute suggest a level of flex in the interplay between the primary and excess layers that many policyholders would find disconcerting.

Special thanks to Michael Early for sending along a copy of the opinion. I hasten to add that the views and opinions expressed in this post are exclusively my own.

My recent post discussing whether Phillip Bennett's use of the D&O insurance proceeds was an appropriate factor in his criminal sentencing can be found here. My prior post regarding the D&O insurance implications of Bennett's cooperation with the class action plaintiffs can be found here.

What Awaits Those Who Spurn Berkshire: A June 25, 2008 Bloomberg article (here) reports that while recently addressing a group of Toronto business executives, Warren Buffett was asked what makes people want to sell their companies to Berkshire. Buffett reportedly said that he tells a prospective seller to think of their company as a work of art:

You can sell it to Berkshire and we’ll put it in the Metropolitan Museum; it’ll have a wing all by itself; it’ll be there forever. Or you can sell it to some porn shop operator, and he’ll take the painting and he’ll make the boobs a little bigger and he’ll stick it in the window, and some other guy will come along in a raincoat, and he’ll buy it.

And Finally: If you have not yet seen this amazing catch by the Fresno Grizzlies’ ball girl, you have to watch this video. It is truly marvelous. [UPDATE: I have to add that a reader advised me that the video may be a hoax, refer here -- alas. It is still an awsome video.]

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the standard provisions of the typical D & O insurance policy is a clause requiring the insurer’s prior consent to settlement. This clause can be the source of tension between carriers and policyholders, and policyholders and their counsel sometimes view the clause as little more than an impediment. However, a March 13, 2008 opinion (here), the New York Court of Appeals makes it clear that policyholders who disregard the settlement consent requirements do so at peril to coverage under the D & O policy.

The insurance coverage dispute in the case arose out of the securities analyst/conflict of interest investigation that unfolded earlier in this decade. Among the investment banks targeted in investigation was Bear Stearns. On December 20, 2002, Bear Stearns entered a settlement in principle with the regulators in which it agreed to pay a total of $80 million, with $25 million allocated as a penalty, $25 million in disgorgements, $25 million for independent research, and $5 million for investor education.

On April 21, 2003, Bear Stearns executed a consent agreement in which it acceded to the entry of final judgment in the SEC’s pending enforcement proceeding. Bear Stearns also agreed to payment of the $80 million and explicitly agreed not to seek insurance coverage for the $25 million penalty.

Three days after executing the settlement agreement, Bear Stearns sent letters to its D & O carriers requesting the carriers’ consent to the settlement. Bear Stearns sought coverage for $45 million of the settlement (which represented the settlement amount, excluding the penalty, in excess of the policy’s $10 million self-insured retention). The insurers disclaimed coverage and initiated a declaratory judgment action.

In October 2003, the federal court presiding over the regulatory enforcement action entered judgment on the terms to which Bearn Stearns previously had agreed.

The insurers disputed coverage on a number of grounds, but because the Court of Appeals opinion addresses only the consent to settlement issue, that is the sole issue I discuss in this post.

Bear Stearns’ primary D & O insurance policy had a provision specifying that:

The Insured agrees not to settle any Claim, incur any Defense Costs or otherwise assume any contractual obligation or admit any liability with respect to any Claim in excessof a settlement authority threshold of $5,000,000 without the Insurer's consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld . . . The insurer shall not be liable for any settlement, Defense Costs, assumed obligation or admission to which it has not consented.

The New York Supreme Court (trial court) found that triable issues of fact existed whether Bear Stearns breached the consent to settlement clause. The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s opinion in certain other respects, but affirmed the Supreme Court on the consent to settlement issue. The Appellate Division then certified the case to the New York Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion written by Justice Victoria A. Graffeo, held that “Bear Stearns breached [the consent] provision when it executed the April 2003 consent agreement before notifying the insurers or obtaining their approval.” The Court of Appeals said that it was “unpersuaded by the contention that a triable issue of fact exists because the federal court did not approve the settlement until it entered a final judgment in October 2003.”

Judge Graffeo specifically noted that

As a sophisticated business entity, Bear Stearns expressly agreed that the insurers would "not be liable" for any settlement in excess of $5 million entered into without their consent. Aware of this contingency in the policies, Bear Stearns nevertheless elected to finalize all outstanding settlement issues and executed a consent agreement before informing its carriers of the terms of the settlement. Bear Stearns therefore may not recover the settlement proceeds from the insurers.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Court and granted the carrier’s motion for summary judgment. Because of its ruling on the consent provision, the Court of Appeals did not reach the other issues on which the carriers disclaimed coverage.

There may well have been additional grounds that could also have precluded coverage here, but it is still an arresting development – and a cautionary tale – that the Court of Appeals precluded coverage altogether based solely on the failure to obtain advance consent to settlement. Significantly, the Court of Appeals enforced the consent provision without superimposing any requirement for the insurer to show that it was prejudiced in any way by the failure to obtain consent. The Court of Appeals focused strictly on the policy’s language.

Companies and their counsel sometimes regard the consent settlement requirement as if the language were merely precatory, or perhaps even as optional if they believe settlement circumstances suggest the need to press ahead without bringing the carrier into the loop. It is not an unprecedented development for a carrier to learn of a settlement only after the fact. But the Bear Stearns opinion provides unambiguous notice to companies and counsel that they disregard the policy’s advance consent requirement at peril of precluding coverage.

The larger lesson here is that the carrier should be kept in the loop. Indeed, the better practice, the one likeliest to produce the best claim outcomes, is for companies and their counsel to treat the carrier as a collaborative partner in the claims process. While there are unfortunate situations where the carrier does not respond appropriately, even in those situations the policyholder will be better off (for example, before a court if coverage litigation ensures) if the policyholder has consistently maintained professional and timely communications with the carrier.

And whatever else may be said, it is clear, at least in New York, that the D & O policy provision requiring the carrier’s advance consent to settlement means what it says, and policyholders should take care to comply with its requirements.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the New York Court of Appeals opinion.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link