D & O Insurance

Subscribe to D & O Insurance via RSS
Shabnam Karim
Simon Lamb

The current conflict in Iran has enormous implications for the global and regional Middle East economy. The conflict also has important insurance implications, including with respect to D&O insurance in the Middle East region. In the following guest post, Shabnam Karim and Simon Lamb examine the ways that the current military, political, and diplomatic circumstances in the region are affecting both corporate risk exposure and the D&O insurance underwriting and claims environment. Shabnam is a partner and Simon is an associate at the Norton Rose Fulbright law firm’s Dubai office. We would like to thank Shabham and Simon for allowing us to publish their article on this site. Here is Shabnam and Simon’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Middle East D&O Claims Exposures in a Time of Tension

One of the perennial D&O insurance issues involves the question whether “disgorgement” amounts awarded in SEC proceedings represent “penalties” for which insurance coverage is precluded. In the latest example of a case involving these issues, the Delaware Superior Court recently held, in reliance on the statutory provisions defining the SEC’s authority to seek monetary remedies, that the disgorgement amounts and prejudgment interest awarded against the media company Clear Channel are not “penalties” for which coverage is precluded. As discussed below, the court’s analysis of the issues, and its reference to the relevant statutory provisions, is both detailed and instructive.

Continue Reading Del. Court: SEC Disgorgement Not a “Penalty” for Which Coverage is Barred

Amid signs of a renewed uptick in SPAC activity, courts continue to grapple with D&O insurance coverage issues arising out of older de-SPAC transactions. In a March 30, 2026,  decision involving the de-SPAC of View Operating Corporation (View), the Delaware Superior Court held, in part, that View’s D&O policy “public offering” exclusion did not apply to preclude coverage for claims arising out of a de‑SPAC transaction and that additional payment conditions could not be imposed unless expressly stated in the policy.

Continue Reading Delaware Court Rejects “Public Offering” Exclusion in De-SPAC Coverage Dispute

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