In the following guest post, Peter Selvin and Ben Clements take a look at the legal principles involved in the allocation of defense expense under a D&O insurance policy. Peter Selvin is a member of TroyGould PC, and Ben Clements is an associate at the firm. I would like to thank Peter and Ben 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 site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Peter and Ben’s article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Allocation of Defense Costs in D&O Litigation
A federal district court has held that because of an insured company’s application misrepresentation about possible M&A activity, a D&O insurance policy’s Warranty Exclusion precludes coverage for the policyholder’s costs incurred in defending claims arising out of the insured company’s acquisition. The court’s opinion raises interesting questions about how the meaning of application questions is to be determined. Central District of California Judge Phillip Gutierrez’s February 4, 2019 opinion in the case can be found 
In a number of recent posts (most recently 
When most people think of liability insurance, they think about the insurer’s payment obligations. But policyholders have obligations under liability insurance policies, too. Among the most important policyholder obligation is the requirement to provide timely notice of claim. The failure to provide timely notice can entirely preclude coverage, as is illustrated in a ruling in a recent coverage dispute arising out of an underlying False Claims Act claim. As discussed below, there were a number of circumstances involved in the underlying claim that the policyholder argued excused or at least explained its late provision of notice. However, the court rejected these arguments and held the late notice was not excused and that coverage was precluded. The February 12, 2019 order in the case by Central District of California Judge 
Everyone involved in any way in D&O insurance transactions has seen an insurance buyer choose to buy a policy that while less expensive provides narrower coverage. Sometimes the price difference might be slight, sometimes the difference could be significant. But the fact is, the most expensive policy is the one that doesn’t provide coverage when it should, and in the event of a claim, narrower coverage can translate into a claims denial. Anyone who wants to see what this might look like in action will want to consider the recent ruling out of the Middle District of Florida, in which the court held that the securities exclusion in a private company D&O insurance policy precluded coverage for an underlying claim against the policyholder and certain of its directors and officer. The January 2, 2019 decision in the case can be found 
As I have noted in a 
t is not uncommon for companies to add third parties as additional named insureds to their D&O insurance policies. Most of the time that doesn’t cause any problems. However, serious problems can arise in a subsequent claim if a company’s interests and the interests of the additional named insured conflict. At a minimum, in the event of a serious claim, the company and the third party can clash as they compete for the finite proceeds of the insurance policy. In a recent coverage decision, the Delaware Superior Court, applying Delaware law, held that AR Capital, an additional named insured under the D&O insurance program of VEREIT, was entitled to have its costs of defending the underlying claims advanced under the program. The Court’s December 12, 2018 ruling, which can be found 
The Second Circuit recently took up the insurance coverage dispute arising out of the