The D&O Diary

The D&O Diary


Tag Archives: insured vs. Insured exclusion

D&O Insurance: Liberalization Endorsement Allows Insureds to Rely on New Policy Form’s Enhanced Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Carve-Back

Posted in D & O Insurance
On June 19, 2014, in a case involving so many unusual coverage issues that it seems more like a law school exam question than an actual coverage dispute, New York (New York County) Supreme Court Judge Melvin Schweitzer, applying New York law, granted summary judgment for the former directors of the bankrupt Lyondell Chemical Company … Continue Reading

D&O Policy Excluding “Receiver” Claims Bars Coverage for FDIC Failed Bank Lawsuit

Posted in Failed Banks
In an interesting April 7, 2014 opinion (here), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the Eastern District of California, applying California law, held that a D&O insurance policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought against former officers of the failed County Bank of Merced, California by the FDIC in its capacity as … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguously Precludes Coverage for FDIC Failed Bank Lawsuit

Posted in D & O Insurance, Failed Banks
One of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues that has arisen during the current wave of failed bank litigation has been the question whether coverage for an action by the FDIC in its role as receiver of a failed bank against a failed bank’s directors and officers is precluded by the Insured vs. Insured exclusion … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: “Ambiguity” Whether Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Bars Coverage for FDIC’s D&O Claims

Posted in D & O Insurance
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 … Continue Reading

District Court: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Does Not Preclude Coverage for FDIC’s Claims Against Failed Bank’s Directors and Officers

Posted in D & O Insurance
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 … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: Applying the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion When Plaintiffs Include Both Insured Persons and Non-Insureds

Posted in D & O Insurance
In a June 29, 2012 opinion (here), the Seventh Circuit, applying Illinois law, held that when the defendants in a lawsuit include both persons who are insureds under the defendant company’s D&O policy and persons are not insureds, the policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion does not preclude coverage for the entire lawsuit, but only the portion … Continue Reading

D&O Insurance: What Happens When the Former CEO Sues the Company?

Posted in D & O Insurance
When an ex- Chairman, CEO and Director sues his former company, are the company’s defense expenses covered under its D&O insurance policy? According to the June 24, 2011 report and recommendation of Middle District of Tennessee Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant, applying Tennessee law, they are not. A copy of Magistrate Bryant’s report and recommendation … Continue Reading

Second Circuit Holds D&O Policy “Ambiguous”

Posted in D & O Insurance
In a June 30, 2010 opinion (here), a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling that coverage under a directors and officers liability insurance policy for an underlying claim was precluded by the policy’s "insured vs. insured" exclusion, holding that the D&O policy at issue was "ambiguous" under Virginia law.   … Continue Reading