One of the key elements to establish coverage under a directors and officers insurance policy is the existence of claim is for actions undertaken by an insured individual in an insured capacity – that is, in his or her capacity as a director or officer of the company. Things in life are never simple, and lawsuits often allege that corporate director or officer defendants were acting in multiple capacities – that is, both in their capacity as a director or officer and in other capacities as well. These multiple capacity claims often present policy interpretation and coverage issues under D&O insurance policies.
In a recent case, the District Court of North Dakota (applying North Dakota law) held that coverage under a D&O insurance policy does not apply to a claim alleging that the insured defendant was acting in multiple capacities. The court also held that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion precluded coverage where the claimants included both insured persons and individuals that were not insured persons. The decision raises some interesting policy language and policy interpretation issues. A copy of May 18, 2018 decision by District of Massachusetts Judge William G. Young, sitting by designation in the District of Nevada, can be found here.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Coverage Precluded for Insured Director Acting in Multiple Capacities
A frequently recurring claim that many companies face is a lawsuit brought by a competitor after the company hires the competitor’s former employee. Depending on how the competitor’s lawsuit is framed, these kinds of claims can be an awkward fit with the defendant company’s D&O insurance policy. A recent insurance coverage dispute in Delaware state court illustrates the kinds of coverage issues that can sometimes arise in connection with these claims. As discussed below, there are ways that D&O insurance policies can be revised to try to address at least some of the coverage issues. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis’s May 2, 2018 in the insurance coverage litigation can be found 
As I have 
In a January 23, 2018 unpublished decision (
In the following guest post, Syed Ahmad, Brittany Davidson, and Andrea DeField of Hunton & Williams LLP take a look at a very interesting New York trial court decision relating to D&O insurers’ duty to advance defense costs. I would like to thank the authors for their willingness to allow me to publish their article as a guest post on my 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’ guest post.
A 
Over the last few days, I have published several posts looking back at 2017. In addition to looking back, this is also the time of year for looking forward as well. Among other things to watch out for this year is a series of D&O insurance coverage cases that are now pending in the appellate courts. In a January 9, 2018 article (
In the following guest post, Jennifer Bergstrom, Esq., Senior Claim Counsel, Hiscox USA, Elan Kandel, Esq. and Jennifer Lewis, Esq. of Bailey Cavalieri take a look at the key D&O insurance coverage decisions of 2017. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article. 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’ guest post.
Insurance policies are of course written documents, dependent upon standard conventions of grammar and usage in order to establish their meaning. A recent unpublished opinion from the Ninth Circuit wrestled with the grammar rules involved when an insurance application’s question and answer created a double negative. Even though a literal reading of the application question using the relevant grammar rules arguably establishes the applicant answered the question truthfully, a majority held that the overall context of the question established that the applicant did not answer the question truthfully, and therefore that the insurer was entitled to rescind the policy based on the application misrepresentation. The dissent disagreed, contending that in light of the application question’s actual wording, the applicant had completed the question truthfully, and therefore that the insurer was not entitled to rescission. The Ninth Circuit’s January 2, 2018 opinion in the case can be found