D & O Insurance

Subscribe to D & O Insurance via RSS
Sarah Abrams

As readers know, one aspect of President Trump’s exercise of his presidential powers has been his willingness to grant pardons to certain persons, including even, as it has turned out, corporations. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, takes a look at the possible D&O insurance implications for a policyholder that has been convicted of a crime but granted a pardon. I would like to thank Sarah for her willingness to allow me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Sarah’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: Pardon Me

Nessim Mezrahi

In the following guest post, Nessim Mezrahi identifies three factors that present the current state of play in the U.S. D&O market.  Nessim is co-founder and CEO of the data analytics firm SAR LLC.  SAR previously published a version of this article as a client alert on May 23, 2025.  I would like to thank Nessim for allowing me to publish this article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to the site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Nessim’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: The State of U.S. D&O Market: Three Factors Impacting the U.S. D&O Market

Because the so-called “bump up” exclusion typically found in D&O insurance policies is a frequently litigated policy term, industry observers were closely watching Fourth Circuit’s consideration of the question whether the exclusion applies to the settlement of litigation relating to Towers Watson’s January 2016 merger with Willis Group Holdings. On May 28, 2025, the appellate court held that the exclusion precludes coverage for the $90 million settlement of the underlying litigation. As discussed below, the appellate court’s decision likely will not put an end to disputes about the applicability of the exclusion. A copy of the Fourth Circuit’s May 28 decision can be found here.Continue Reading 4th Circ.: Bump-Up Exclusion Bars Towers Watson Settlement Coverage

Francis Kean

One of the perennial questions for D&O insurance buyers and their advisors is: What is the right amount of insurance to buy? In the following guest post, Francis Kean, Partner in the Financial Lines Team at McGill and Partners, takes a look at a recent court judgment in which the court raised serious questions about a company’s limits selection and proposes five lessons that may be drawn from the case. I would like to thank Francis for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Francis’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: Are Companies Buying Enough Directors & Officers Insurance?

Every now and then, a court decision catches our attention. That was the case with the Ninth Circuit’s March 20, 2025, opinion, in which the court held that coverage for settlement amounts and defense costs incurred in an underlying employee and client poaching lawsuit was barred by California Insurance Code Section 533. Section 533 bars coverage for loss caused by “the willful act of the insured.” The troublesome thing about this opinion is that the appellate court held coverage was precluded even though the willful conduct involved was merely alleged, not proven.Continue Reading Are Allegations Sufficient to Trigger California Ins. Code Section 533?

The preclusive effect of the “bump-up” exclusion typically found in most D&O insurance policies has been frequently litigated topic. In the following guest post, Barry Buchman, Michael Scanlon, and Jake Todd review recent case law developments relating to the scope of the bump-up exclusion’s preclusive effect. Buchman is a partner, Scanlon is a counsel, and Todd is an associate in the insurance recovery group of Haynes and Boone, LLP. This article is an update of the authors’ prior guest post about the bump-up exclusion on this site, here. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their author as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Bump-Up Exclusion: Recent Delaware Decisions Support Policyholders

Regular readers know that a recurring topic on this site is the question of the proper scope of the contractual liability exclusion found in many professional liability and management liability insurance policies. In prior posts I have argued that insurers sometimes apply the exclusion overly-broadly so as to exclude matters I believe should otherwise be covered under the policy. A recent Delaware Superior Court decision once again considered these issues in the context of an underlying qui tam action alleging violations of federal law. As discussed below, the court concluded that the applicable policy’s contractual liability did not preclude coverage for the underlying claim. A copy of the Delaware Superior Court’s March 12, 2025, opinion in the case can be found here.Continue Reading Del. Court: Contract Exclusion Does Not Preclude Coverage for Qui Tam Action

The typical D&O insurance policy provides coverage, subject to all of its terms and conditions, for an insured’s payment of “Loss.” The policy typically provides that “Loss” includes settlements. But what happens if in settling a lawsuit a policyholder issues stock rather than paying cash? Does the stock issuance represent “Loss” within the meaning of the policy? In an interesting recent opinion, the Delaware Superior Court held that AMC Entertainment Holding’s issuance of stock in connection with the settlement of a stockholders’ claim did represent “Loss” within the meaning of the applicable policy. As discussed below, the court’s opinion raises some interesting questions. The Delaware court’s February 28, 2025, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Is Stock Issuance in Connection with a Settlement “Loss”?

The 2019 merger between Viacom and CBS to form ViacomCBS (later renamed Paramount Global) generated extensive litigation that ultimately settled. The Merger — and the Merger-related litigation — followed events involving the two companies going back to 2016, and in fact there had been prior litigation back in 2016 as well. National Amusements, Inc. (NAI), which owned a majority of the voting shares of both CBS and Viacom, sought coverage for the defense and settlement of the 2019 litigation from its D&O insurers. The insurers contended that the 2019 post-Merger litigation and the 2016 lawsuits were interrelated, and therefore that the settlement was covered under policies in force in 2016, rather than under the policies in force in 2019.

In an opinion dated February 17, 2025, but only recently made public, the Delaware Superior Court granted NAI’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the 2019 Suit is not interrelated with the 2016 Suits, and therefore that costs associated with the 2019 Suit were covered under the 2019 Policy and not under the 2016 Policy. The court’s analysis, in which it concluded that the two sets of litigation were not “meaningfully linked,” is detailed and interesting, and helps to explain what factors are relevant in the analysis of the meaningfully linkage issue. A copy of the court’s opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Del. Court Holds Merger Litigation Not “Meaningfully Linked” to Prior Suits

John McCarrick

Readers of this blog have no doubt followed both the recent ongoing controversy over whether companies should leave Delaware for supposedly friendlier jurisdictions as well as the legislation recently introduced in the state’s General Assembly to try to address some of the legal concerns behind the leaving Delaware initiative. In the following guest post, and in the context of these issues, John McCarrick, a partner at the Robinson & Cole law firm in New York, takes a look at recurring Delaware issues that in his view are of significant concern to D&O insurers. I would like to thank John for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is John’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: DExit Drama and D&O Insurance Issues