Tag Archives: D&O Insurance coverage

Guest Post: The D&O Cramdown: Triggering Side A DIC Coverage When an Underlying D&O Carrier Declines Coverage

In the following guest post, Peter Gillon and Eric Gold of the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman law firm take a look at one of important drop down features of Side A DIC insurance coverage, the coverage that is triggered when an underlying carrier denies coverage. I would like to thank Peter and Eric for their … Continue Reading

Guest Post: India: Compounding of Offences under Companies Act 2013 – D&O Insurance

In the Companies Act 2013, India’s parliament incorporated a provision allowing for the “compounding” of offenses. “Compounding” is a way for an accused violator to avoid litigation. It is a settlement process by which the accused pays a fee instead of undergoing prosecution. In the following guest post, Umesh Pratapa takes a look at the … Continue Reading

Professional Services Exclusion Not Triggered Where Allegations Did Not Involve Specialized Knowledge

Regular readers know that one of my hobby-horse issues is the way that some D&O insurers try to deny coverage for claims in reliance on an overbroad assertion of the professional services exclusion typically found in most private company D&O insurance policies. A D&O insurer’s sweeping assertion of exclusion’s preclusive affect can be a particular challenging … Continue Reading

Two Things D&O Insurers Regularly Get Wrong

Readers familiar with my background know that while I have spent the last ten years representing policyholders, I spent the first 25 years or so of my career on the insurer side of the aisle, first as a lawyer representing insurers and later as an insurer employee. Because of that long prior experience, I am … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Whose “Securities” Must a Claim Involve to Trigger Securities Claim Coverage?

Public company D&O insurance provides coverage for “Securities Claims.” But whose securities must be involved in a claim in order for coverage to be triggered? Must the claim involve the securities of the corporate policyholder itself? Or can coverage be triggered by a claim involving mortgage-backed securities the corporate policyholder issued as part of its … Continue Reading

Guest Post: The Danger of Unfounded Assumptions

In the following guest post, Donna Ferrara, Esq., Senior Vice-President, Managing Director, Management Liability Practice, Arthur J. Gallagher, takes a look at a recent federal appellate court decision highlighting the problems that can arise when anyone – including outside counsel – makes assumptions about insurance without actually looking at the relevant policies. Donna also examines … Continue Reading

Guest Post: Ten Mistakes Companies Make When Buying D&O Insurance –A Securities Litigator’s Perspective

Just about every publicly traded company and most private companies carry D&O insurance. It is just common sense in the current litigious environment. But while most companies recognize the need for D&O insurance, not every company maximizes its investment when purchasing the insurance. In the following guest post, Michael J. Biles, a partner in the … Continue Reading

Tenth Circuit: D&O Insurance Policy’s Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguously Precludes Coverage for FDIC’s Failed Bank Claims

In an important decision concerning D&O insurance coverage in connection with failed bank claims, the Tenth Circuit, applying Kansas law, held that a D&O policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage for claims brought by the FDIC as receiver of a failed bank against the bank’s former directors and officers. The Tenth Circuit’s decision arguably … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: The Major Shareholder Exclusion

An exclusion sometimes found in D&O insurance policies precludes coverage for claims made by shareholders who have a specified percentage of ownership in the insured company. This type of exclusion is called a Major Shareholder Exclusion (or, sometimes, the Principal Shareholder Exclusion). An interesting May 6, 2015 decision (here) by the Supreme Court of Victoria … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Contract Exclusion Does Not Preclude Coverage for Intentional Misrepresentation Claim

A recurring D&O insurance question is whether or not a policy’s contract exclusion precludes coverage for claims that the insured induced the claimant into entering a contract through negligent or intentional misrepresentations. In a interesting December 22, 2014 opinion (here), District of Rhode Island Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., applying Rhode Island law, held that … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Eleventh Circuit Holds Insured v. Insured Exclusion’s Applicability to FDIC Failed Bank Claims Ambiguous

Going all the way back to the S&L crisis, a recurring insurance coverage issue that has arisen in the failed bank context has been the question of whether or not coverage for a claim brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver of a failed bank against the failed bank’s former directors and officers … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Contractual Liability Exclusion Precludes Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation Claims

In an October 20, 2014 opinion (here), Middle District of Florida Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., applying Florida law, entered summary judgment for a D&O insurer, holding that the insurer was not liable for the stipulated judgment its insured had entered because the policy’s broad contractual liability exclusion precluded coverage for the underlying claims of … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Prior and Pending Litigation Exclusion Bars Coverage for Lawsuit Filed Years Before But Served During the Current Policy Period

Under which claims made D&O insurance policy is there coverage for a claim that was filed under seal years ago but not served on the policyholder until the policy period of the current policy? If you find the answer “no policy” as unsatisfying as I do, read on. In a September 15, 2014 opinion (here), … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Later Securities Suit and Prior FDIC Failed Bank Claim Held Unrelated, Securities Suit Not Covered

On May 8, 2014, Southern District of New York Judge Deborah Batts, applying New York law, held that a there was not a sufficient “factual nexus” between a securities suit filed after the expiration of a failed bank’s D&O insurance policy and an FDIC claim that had been first made during the policy period and … Continue Reading

First Circuit: D&O Insurer Must Advance Failed Bank Directors and Officers’ Defense Expenses

In an interesting March 31, 2014 opinion (here), the Unites States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, applying Puerto Rico law, affirmed a district court’s ruling that the D&O insurer for the failed Westernbank of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico must advance the bank’s former directors’ and officers’ expenses incurred in defending the FDIC’s suit against … Continue Reading

More About D&O Insurance Coverage for Subpoena Response Costs

As I have previously noted on this blog, a recurring insurance coverage issue is whether or not the costs incurred in responding to a regulatory or enforcement subpoena represent covered defense under a D&O insurance policy. In an interesting March 27, 2014 memo entitled “D&O Coverage for Subpoena Response Costs: An Emerging Consensus?” (here), Benjamin … Continue Reading

“Disgorgement” Not Precluded from D&O Insurance Coverage Where Firm Did Not Profit from Improper Conduct

In a June 11, 2013 opinion, the New York Court of Appeals held that Bear Stearns is not barred from seeking insurance coverage for a $160 million portion of an SEC enforcement action settlement labeled as “disgorgement,” where Bear Stearns’ customers rather than Bear Stearns itself profited from alleged misconduct.  The Court’s opinion reversed the ruling … Continue Reading

New Zealand Appellate Court Overturns Controversial Decision Blocking D&O Defense Cost Reimbursement

An appellate court in New Zealand has “quashed” the controversial ruling of a  lower court ruling that former directors of the defunct Bridgecorp companies are not entitled to defense expense reimbursement under the companies’ D&O insurance policy where the companies’ liquidators have raised (but not yet proven) claims against them exceeding the policy’s limits of … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Two More Cases Hold No Excess Coverage Where Underlying Insurance Not Exhausted

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 … Continue Reading
LexBlog