In a recent decision following a bench trial, a California state court judge held that a D&O insurance policy’s “bump up” exclusion applies to preclude coverage for the settlement of claims by shareholders of the acquired company who claimed they had received inadequate consideration for their acquired shares. The judge’s decision, which reflected her reading of the specific exclusionary language involved as well as the testimony of several witnesses about the meaning of the provision, is interesting in that the “bump up” exclusion fights usually involve claims against the acquirer for paying inadequate consideration, not claims that the acquired company’s investors received inadequate consideration.
The court’s opinion is detailed but merits a full reading. The Court’s October 1, 2020 decision can be found here. (It should be noted that, under applicable procedural rules, the court’s decision is “tentative,” meaning that the parties have 15 days in which to file objections.)
Continue Reading “Bump-Up” Exclusion Blocks Coverage for Inadequate Consideration Paid for Insured Company’s Acquisition
Having observed and commented on the D&O insurance industry for many years, I am accustomed to periodic proclamations from non-industry-based observers about how the D&O insurance industry ought to work, based on various social, behavioral, or economic notions. These periodic declarations usually start with a series of vexed observations that the D&O industry does or does not do things that economic or behavioral models suggest the industry should or should not do, and then the declarations move on to a series of proposed prescriptions that would mandate how the D&O insurance business ought to work, for the supposed greater good of all.
Among the looming economic consequences of the pandemic is the likelihood of a huge surge in bankruptcy filings. A rise in bankruptcies will in turn likely lead to an increase in the number of bankruptcy-related litigation claims against directors and officers of the bankrupt companies, which in turn could lead to insurance coverage issues under the companies’ D&O insurance policies. In the following guest post, Alicia Garcia and Kate Hausmann, Complex Claim Specialists with Hiscox USA, and James Talbert and Elan Kandel of the Bailey Cavalieri law firm take a look at the issues that could arise in the bankruptcy context with respect to the policies’ Insured vs. Insured Exclusion. I would like to thank the authors 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.
In an interesting decision that touches on a number of basic D&O insurance coverage issues, a federal district court judge applying Oklahoma law has ruled that a company’s management liability insurance policy does not provide coverage for legal expenses a former company executive incurred in a declaratory judgment action that had been filed by another company executive to determine the parties’ rights under a profit sharing agreement. The court concluded that there was no coverage because the individual seeking coverage had not been named as a defendant in the lawsuit by reason of his status as an insured person. Even more interestingly, the court concluded further that, even though the individual had been named as a defendant in the declaratory judgment lawsuit, he had not incurred “Defense Expenses” in the lawsuit, and therefore suffered no “Loss.” Western District of Oklahoma Judge 
Many traditional liability insurance policies contain provisions specifying that in the event of a claim the insurer has the duty to defend the insured. However, many management liability insurance policies do not impose a duty on the insurer to defend the insured; rather, these policies usually provide that insureds will defend themselves, with the obligation on the insurer to advance defense costs as they are incurred, subject to all of the policy’s terms and conditions. However, because defense obligations under the more traditional duty to defend arrangement are well established and more familiar to many courts, courts sometimes attempt to resolve issues arising under duty to advance policies by referring to principles established with regard to duty to defend policies.
As I noted in yesterday’s post, there could be a significant number of bankruptcies in coming months, and D&O claims in the bankruptcy context could give rise to insurance coverage disputes. In addition to the possible coverage issues I noted in yesterday’s post (pertaining bankruptcy exclusions, in particular), another issue that could arise is whether or not coverage for claims brought on behalf of the bankrupt debtor’s estate or on behalf of unsecured creditors is precluded by the insured vs. insured exclusion found in most policies.
As a result of the economic fallout from the coronavirus outbreak, a number of businesses will struggle to survive. Some may wind up in bankruptcy. Indeed, a May 28, 2020 Harvard Business Review article (