D & O Insurance

Subscribe to D & O Insurance via RSS

On April 10, 2026, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) became the first company to settle with the Trump Administration to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Acts (FCA) by implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as part of its hiring practices.  As we have discussed in prior posts, this Administration has clearly signaled that it would use the FCA as part of its an anti-DEI campaign and that, as of late 2025, the DOJ had already launched investigations of DEI consideration in hiring or promotion at major U.S. companies.  

Continue Reading The IBM DEI False Claims Act Settlement and the D&O Risk Implications

One of the perennial management liability insurance coverage issues is whether a policy’s contractual liability exclusion precludes coverage for related tort claims filed alongside claims for breach of contract. Often, these issues turn on the specific wording of the exclusion involved. A recent insurance coverage decision from the Northern District of Illinois addressed these issues in the context of an underlying lawsuit involving both a breach of contract claim and a claim for tortious interference with contract. As discussed below, the court concluded, based on the specific language involved, that the exclusion did not preclude coverage for the tortious interference claim.

The Court’s March 31, 2026, opinion can be found here. An April 9, 2026 LinkedIn post about the court’s decision by Paul Curley of the Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan law firm can be found here.

Continue Reading Contract Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Tortious Interference Claim

In an interesting decision analzing how a D&O run-off policy’s Subsequent Acts Exclusion operates, a New York federal district court has ruled that acts after the cut-off date that aren’t unlawful don’t preclude coverage for an underlying claim based on alleged misrepresentations made before the cut-off date. Judge Jed Rakoff’s March 13, 2026, decision in the case, applying New York law, can be found here. A March 18, 2026 post about the decision on the Pillsbury law firm’s Policyholder Pulse blog can be found here.

Continue Reading Later Acts that are Not “Wrongful” Don’t Bar D&O Run-Off Coverage
James Sterlin
Mike Newham

In the following guest post, James Sterling, Claims Counsel, Euclid Financial & Professional Risks, and Mike Newham, Partner, RPC, consider the economic and underwriting risks associated with the private credit markets. A version of this article previously was published on LinkedIn and on Euclid’s website. My thanks to James and Mike for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. Here is the authors’ article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Private Credit – Risky Business?

Public company D&O insurance policies restrict “entity coverage” (that is, coverage for claims directly against the corporate entity, as opposed to those against individual directors and officers) to “Securities Claims.” If a claim against the company is not Securities Claim then there is no coverage for the company’s defense fees, settlements, and judgments. This obviously creates a huge incentive for the companies to try to show that the claims against them are Securities Claims – which, in turn, has spawned a great deal of coverage litigation addressing the question whether or not a particular corporate lawsuit is or not a Securities Claim.

In the latest example of these kinds of coverage disputes, last week the District of Maryland, applying Maryland law, held that an antitrust claim filed against a corporate entity was not a securities claim within the meaning of the applicable policy – not because the antitrust claim was not “Securities Claims,” but rather because the dispute did not involve alleged transactions in the securities of the company or its subsidiaries. The Maryland court’s March 24, 2026, opinion can be found here.

Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Not a “Securities Claim” if No Securities of the “Company” Involved
Lucas Roberts

In the following guest post, Lucas Roberts, a Management Liability Broker for Burns & Wilcox, examines a recent coverage dispute in which a nonprofit organization unsuccessfully sought to have its insurer defend the organization in a civil rights lawsuit. My thanks to Lucas for allowing me to publish his article on this site. Here is Lucas’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Nonprofit with Zero Employees Handles Discrimination Claim Alone
Megan Black

In the following guest post, Megan Black, a D&O broker in the Financial Services Group at Aon, reviews and analyzes how private company D&O insurance policies address legal defense costs. This overview highlights the key differences between Duty to Defend and Reimbursement approaches. The original article was previously published on the AON Financial Services Group’s web presence and can be found here. My thanks to Megan for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. Here is Megan’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Optimizing D&O Policies for Private and Nonprofit Firms

Questions whether two sets of circumstances are or are not interrelated are among the most vexing insurance coverage disputes out there. These questions often are even more fraught because of the significant amounts of money that can depend on the answer. All of these considerations were in play in a recent Fourth Circuit decision in which the appellate court concluded in the Under Armour case that because prior shareholder litigation and a later SEC investigation were “logically and causally” related, they represented a single claim triggering only one $100 million insurance tower, rather than a second $100 million tower, as the company had argued. The Court’s January 20, 2026, decision, which highlights the many concerns and considerations that can come into play in these kinds of disputes, can be found here.

Continue Reading 4th Circuit: Shareholder Claims and SEC Investigation “Logically and Causally” Related
Sarah Abrams

Bankruptcy is a fraught circumstance for D&O insurance. As discussed in the following guest post from Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, the usual bankruptcy complications are further amplified in the crypto context. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site.

Continue Reading Guest Post: D&O Insurance Coverage in a Crypto Mining Bankruptcy
Burkhard Fassbach

In the following guest post, Burkhard Fassbach, a D&O lawyer in private practice in Germany, reviews and analzyes a recent decision by the German Federal Court of Justice interpreting and applying the D&O insurance exclusion precluding coverage for “knowing breach of duty.” I would like to thank Burkhard for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. Here is Burkhard’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: German Court Redefines Knowing Breach Exclusions in D&O Insurance