As I have noted in prior posts on this site (most recently here), the so-called “bump up” exclusion in D&O insurance policies is a frequent source of coverage litigation between D&O insurance policyholders and their insurers. The “bump up” exclusion precludes coverage for increased amounts participants in an M&A transaction agree to pay in the transaction in order to settle a M&A-related lawsuit. In the following guests post, Barry Buchman and Michael Scanlon take a look at the issues that can arise in disputes over the application of the “bump up” exclusion and consider the practical consequences. Barry is partner and Michael is counsel in the insurance recovery group at the Haynes and Boone law firm. I would like to thank Barry and Michael for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Avoiding Bumps in the Road to Coverage: Limitations on the “Bump-Up Exclusion”
I hope all of you already know this, for just in case and for those of you who do not, registration is now open for the 2022 PLUS D&O Symposium, which will be held March 1-2, 2022, at the Marriott Marquis in New York. The event will held live this year. I have already registered and I hope many of you will also register and attend the event. It will be so great to see everyone again! To register and for other information, please refer 
In a November 30, 2021 opinion (
Several years ago, when it became clear that plaintiffs’ lawyers were going to file merger objection lawsuits in connection with essentially every M&A transaction, the D&O insurers responded by adding a separate, larger retention for M&A-related claims. The larger M&A-related claim retention quickly became pretty much a standard feature of public company D&O insurance policies. However, because the M&A claim retention is in many instances substantially larger than the retention that would otherwise apply, the question of whether the larger retention applies to a particular claim can be a significant one. In a recent case, the Delaware Superior Court addressed a D&O insurance coverage dispute in which, among other things, the insurers and the policyholder disagreed on whether the larger M&A-related claim retention applied to the underlying litigation. In an interesting November 23, 2021 opinion (
In the latest development in the long-running saga involving the efforts by J.P. Morgan to obtain D&O insurance coverage for the $140 million “disgorgement” that its predecessor-in-interest, Bear Stearns, paid to settle SEC market-timing allegations, the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) has reversed the intermediate appellate court’s ruling that the payment represented a “penalty” for which coverage is precluded. The Court of Appeals rejected the intermediate appellate court’s conclusion, made in reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 Kokesh decision, that a “disgorgement” payment to the SEC is a “penalty.” The Court of Appeals held that Kokesh did not control, and that because the payment was compensatory in nature, it did not represent a “penalty” for which coverage is precluded under the policies. The Court’s November 24, 2021 opinion can be found 
The number of 
As readers know, there has been a wave of business interruption coverage insurance disputes arising out the pandemic. But the business interruption claims are not the only insurance coverage disputes the coronavirus outbreak has caused. An interesting recent D&O insurance-related coverage dispute involves the denial by a D&O insurer of coverage for lawsuits a health industry technology trade association faced following the March 2020 coronavirus outbreak-related cancellation of the association’s annual trade show.
A federal district court, applying Virginia law, has held that the “Bump-Up” exclusion in a D&O insurance policy does not unambiguously apply to preclude coverage for the settlements of underlying actions relating to the 2016 merger of Towers Watson and Willis. The court construed the exclusion narrowly and based on a reasonable interpretation most favorable to the insured, Towers Watson, determined that the settlements were not excluded from the definition of Loss under the Bump-Up exclusion. A copy of the court’s October 5, 2021 opinion can be found