D & O Insurance

Subscribe to D & O Insurance via RSS

Insurance practitioners know that policy language matters. Insurance coverage advocates are also well aware that the application of the canons of construction can significantly affect contested coverage matters. These two considerations came together in a recent Fifth Circuit opinion, in which the placement of a single word — the word “the” — proved to be outcome determinative. The appellate court’s decision so clearly presents these fundamental policy interpretation issues, it should be mandatory reading for anyone involved in insurance policy wording issues. A copy of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion can be found here. A July 10, 2025 LinkedIn post about the decision by Geoffrey Fehling of the Hunton Andrews Kurth law firm can be found here.Continue Reading Does the Word “The” Change an Exclusion’s Meaning?

Umesh Pratapa

The typical U.S. D&O insurance policy does not provide coverage for fines and penalties. The standard definition of Loss in U.S. D&O insurance policies provides that Loss does not include “fines, penalties, and matters deemed uninsurable under applicable law.” The situation may be different in some countries outside the U.S. In the following guest post, Umesh Pratapa, considers the question of the extent to which D&O policies may under certain circumstances provide coverage for fines and penalties. Umesh is the Author of the handbook on D&O liability insurance published by Institute of Directors (IOD), India, and Consultant – liability insurance. I would like to thank Umesh 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 Umesh’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: D&O Insurance – Coverage for Penalties: New Insights from Recent Australian Judgement

Sarah Abrams

One of the standard D&O policy exclusions is the Insured vs. Insured (IvI) Exclusion, which precludes coverage for claims brought by one insured against another insured. This exclusion is usually subject to a number of coverage carve-backs preserving coverage for certain kinds of claims that would otherwise be excluded. Many exclusions include carve backs for dilution claims (the Dilution Claims Exception), a provision that is not often tested. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, takes a look at the larger context of AI regulation, takes a look at a recent case interpreting and apply in the Dilution Claims Exception. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing 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: Diluting I v I

The costs companies incur in responding to an SEC investigation can be substantial. Companies incurring these kinds of costs are sometimes surprised to learn that their D&O insurance policies may not, and likely will not, cover these kinds of costs, at least under most insurer’s base policy forms.

A recent Delaware Superior Court decision involved a company’s attempt to secure coverage for the costs it incurred in responding to an SEC investigation after the company had agreed to toll the statute of limitations. The Court found that while the tolling request was a Claim within the meaning of the company’s policy, it was not a Securities Claim, as would be required in order for the policy’s entity coverage to be triggered. As discussed below, the Court’s decision provides an opportunity to think about the optional entity investigative cost coverage extension. A copy of the Delaware Superior Court’s June 30, 2025, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Tolling Agreement Is a Claim, But Not a Securities Claim

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