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

Every now and then, I read a court opinion on a coverage issue, and though I can understand how the court reached its decision, I still find the outcome surprising and troubling. A January 19, 2010 per curiam opinion from the Connecticut Supreme Court (here) involving a coverage dispute under an Employment Practices Liability (EPL) policy presents a recent example of this kind of decision. The court’s analysis is internally logical, but I suspect the outcome would surprise most EPL policyholders and even many insurance practitioners. The decision may have important implications for the placement and administration of EPL insurance.

Background and the Connecticut Supreme Court’s Decision

National Waste Associates was purchased an EPL policy for the period February 15, 2007 to February 15, 2009. On May 12, 2007, a former employee brought a wrongful discharge action against National Waste. National Waste submitted the claim to its EPL carrier. The carrier refused to provide a defense or to indemnify the firm. National Waste filed a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration of coverage.

The carrier took the position that coverage was precluded by the EPL policy’s prior or pending action exclusion. The exclusion provides that the policy does not provide coverage for any claim "based upon, arising out of, [etc.] … any fact, circumstance, situation, transaction, event or wrongful act underlying or alleged in any prior or pending civil, criminal or administrative or regulatory proceeding."

The carrier contended that the prior or pending action exclusion had been triggered by the proceedings the employee had brought in 2005 to obtain unemployment benefits. As later recited by the Connecticut Supreme Court in its review of the case, the former employee had claimed, both in pursuing unemployment benefits and in the later wrongful discharge action, that she had been wrongfully discharged after resisting National Waste’s alleged invasion of her privacy.

The trial court agreed with the carrier that the unemployment benefit proceedings clearly constituted prior "administrative proceedings" within the meaning of the policy and granted the carrier’s motion for summary judgment. National Waste appealed.

In its January 19 per curiam opinion, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, adopting the trial court’s reasoning.

Discussion

The court’s reasoning is straightforward and internally logical, particularly if the unemployment benefits proceeding is, as seems to be the case, fairly characterized as an "administrative proceeding" within the meaning of the policy.

But as noted in a January 21, 2010 memorandum about the ruling from the Murtha Cullina law firm entitled "Employment Practices Liability Insurance: Surprise Coverage Interpretation" (here), the outcome "no doubt shocked" the employer. The law firm memo identifies the sharp distinction between, for example the circumstances that might be involved had the former employee raised an EEOC charge of discrimination in a prior period, and the circumstances actually presented, with the former employee’s prior filing of proceedings for unemployment benefits.

As the law firm memo observes:

Unemployment compensation claims are not only very common, but they are typically handled very differently by employers. (For example, employers rarely if ever engage legal counsel to attend unemployment compensation hearings.) The standard for denying unemployment benefits is so high that employers often do not even contest the claims. Even if they do contest, most former employees who lose their jobs for any reason collect benefits. If fact, a claim for unemployment benefits is not even really a claim "against" the employer – it is a claim for state benefits that are funded by a tax on all employers. Moreover no EPLI policy provides coverage for unemployment claims.

In light of all of these practical circumstances, it would come as an unexpected and inexplicable revelation to most employers to learn that an unemployment benefits claims in one policy period could preclude coverage for an employment practices claim in another period. The implication is that the employer has to notify their EPL carrier of the unemployment benefits claim in order to preserve EPL coverage if the former employed later files an employment practices claim.

Most employers would be completely astonished to learn that their EPL carrier expects to be provided with notice of unemployment benefits proceedings. Indeed the revelation of this expectation is so unanticipated that it has the feel of a trap for the unwary.

The message for policyholders and their advisors hoping to avoid the trap seems to be that companies should provide carriers with notice of every single instance where an employee or former employee seeks unemployment benefits. However, given the frequency of these types of proceedings, I suspect strongly that if policyholders gave notice of every instance where an employee or former employee is seeking unemployment benefits, the carriers would quickly find themselves drowning in paper. I doubt the carriers would really want what would ensue.

And regardless of what the carriers may want or even expect, it is a serious question whether, as a practical matter, it is fair to penalize companies for failing to take actions that the most companies would have no idea are required of them.

This may be one of those instances where the professional liability industry needs to come together to craft a solution to prevent an outcome that no one could possibly really want. (I have in mind the recent sequence of events where the D&O industry, in order to avert the consequences of an unexpected coverage decision, quickly took steps to try to eliminate the possibility of a carrier arguing that a Section 11 settlement did not represent covered "Loss.)

Maybe I am being optimistic, but perhaps policyholder representative and the carriers can find a solution that will ensure that EPL insurers will not take the position that an action for employment benefits is not a "claim" or an "administrative action" within the meaning of the policy.

I recognize that some readers may take exception, perhaps strong exception, to my analysis. I invite readers to submit their views using the comment feature on this blog.

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

According to its January 6, 2010 press release (here), the U.S. Equal Employment Commission announced that near record numbers of workplace discrimination charges were filed with the agency in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. As reflected in the agency’s statistical presentation, there were 93,277 charges filed in FY 2009, which is the second-highest number the agency has recorded.

The highest annual number filings occurred in FY 2008, when 95,402 charges were filed. The FY 2009 filing levels were about 2.2% below the FY 2008 levels, but still well above any prior year. After 2008, the next closest year in terms of filing activity was FY 2002 (during the prior economic downturn), when there were 84,442 filings.

Consistent with recent historical trends, the most frequently alleged types of discrimination are race (36%), retaliation (36%) and sex-based discrimination. (A single charge filing may allege multiple types of discrimination.) Allegations based on age-based disability (up about 10%), religion (up 3%) and/or national origin (up 5%) hit record highs. Allegations of age-based discrimination reached the second-highest level ever.

The EEOC also reported that through its enforcement, mediation and litigation programs, the agency "recovered more than $376 million in monetary relief for thousands of discrimination victims."

The EEOC’s press release states that the "near-historic level of total discrimination charge filings [in FY 2009] may be due to multiple factors," including "greater accessibility of the EEOC to the public, economic conditions, increased diversity and demographic shifts in the labor force, [and] employees’ greater awareness of their rights under law."

The sustained record level of EEOC charge filings during the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 should be a matter of concern for every employer. These figures not only underscore the need for every employer to adopt and implement best employment practices, they also highlight the need for every employer to procure employment practices insurance as a critical and indispensible part of their insurance program.

The EEOC’s suggestion that the heightened level of filings of individual charges is due in part to the economic conditions and to employees’ greater awareness of their rights also suggests that, as the current economic downturn drags on, the elevated filing levels could continue for some time to come.

A January 6, 2010 National Law Journal article about the EEOC’s statistical release can be found here (registration required).

Another Securities Class Action Trial: We are all awaiting the outcome of the long running Vivendi trial, which is just wrapping up this week in the Southern District of New York. But while all eyes were on the Vivendi trial, few of us noted that another securities class action trial was going on in the Central District of California, in the American Mutual Funds Fee Litigation.

Kudos to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch blog, who first brought this development to my attention in his blog post here.

The case apparently went forward as a bench trial this past summer before Judge Gary Feess, whose December 28, 2009 post-trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law can be found here. Essentially, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had violated the federal securities laws by charging excessive advisory and distribution fees. Judge Feess concluded that the plaintiffs had not sustained their burden of proving that the fees were so "disproportionately large" that they bore "no reasonable relationship" to the services, as the plaintiffs were required to show in order to prevail.

As the Securities Litigation Watch details here, there have now been 22 post-1996 securities class action lawsuit cases that have gone to trial (not counting Vivendi), eight of which involved post-PSLRA conduct and that have actually gone to verdict. Taking into account post-verdict motions and appeals, the current scoreboard on these post-PSLRA lawsuit verdicts (according to the SLW’s data) now reads: Defendants 5, Plaintiffs 3. (Soon to be updated, I suppose, after the Vivendi jury reaches a verdict.)

Andrew Longstreth’s January 6, 2009 American Lawyer article about the American Mutual Funds Fee Litigation verdict can be found here.

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