Executives at companies whose securities are publicly traded typically don’t need to be persuaded that their company needs D&O insurance. They understand that the exposures public companies face make D&O insurance indispensable. However, the view of some private company managers may be different, particularly for officials at companies whose shares are very closely held. These company officials may believe their company has little risk of getting hit with a D&O lawsuit and as a result conclude that they don’t need D&O insurance. However, the reality is that D&O insurance is an indispensable part of every company’s risk management arsenal, whether or not a company’s shares are listed.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance is Important for Private Companies, Too
Important D&O Insurance Program Structure Concerns
Most D&O insurance buyers understand the critical importance of limits selection – that is, deciding how much insurance to buy. But an equally important question involves the issue of program structure – that is, how the insurance program is put together. Many insurance buyers understand that, in order to be able to purchase an insurance program with the desired limits of liability, their D&O insurance will be structured with a layer of primary insurance and one or more layers of excess insurance. In addition, these days many D&O insurance buyers also purchase an additional layer – usually on the top of program – of Side A Difference in Condition (DIC) insurance. As noted in an interesting May 2, 2017 post on the Pillsbury Policyholder Pulse blog (here), “no coverage may be less understood” than the Side A DIC policy. But even if frequently misunderstood, the coverage provides corporate directors and officers an important safety net. Moreover, there are other important D&O insurance program structure issues, beyond just the need for Side A DIC insurance.
Continue Reading Important D&O Insurance Program Structure Concerns
In Long-Running Bear Stearns Dispute, N.Y. Court Rejects Insurers’ Remaining Coverage Defenses
In what seems like the culminating trial court clash in the long-running effort of J.P. Morgan, as successor in interest to Bear Stearns, to try to obtain insurance coverage for amounts Bear Stearns paid to settle charges that it had facilitated market timing and late trading, New York (New York County) Supreme Court Judge Charles E. Ramos, applying New York law, on April 17, 2017 entered a summary judgment order (here) comprehensively rejecting the insurers’ various remaining coverage defenses. While further appellate proceedings in the case seem likely, Judge Ramos’s order makes for interesting reading.
Continue Reading In Long-Running Bear Stearns Dispute, N.Y. Court Rejects Insurers’ Remaining Coverage Defenses
Policyholder Group Supports Appeal Involving Professional Services Exclusion
Regular readers know that one of my hobby-horse issues is what I perceive as insurers’ overbroad application of the professional services exclusion typically found in private company D&O insurance policies, particularly with respect to policyholders in services businesses. Because of this long-standing concern, I was interested to see that a policyholders’ rights group has filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in support of a policyholder’s appeal of a district court ruling that coverage under a D&O insurance policy for the underlying claim was precluded by the professional services exclusion. While the amicus brief may help focus the appellate court on the problems involved in what is a recurring situation, the larger point may be that as an industry we need to address a problem that affects all industry participants.
Continue Reading Policyholder Group Supports Appeal Involving Professional Services Exclusion
D&O Insurance: When Is a Claim a “Securities Claim”?
Public company D&O insurance policies typically provide coverage for the corporate entity only for “Securities Claims.” A recent case in the Delaware Superior Court involved the question of whether a bankruptcy trustee’s claim related to Verizon’s multi-billion dollar spinoff of its electronic directories business was a “Securities Claim.” In an interesting and detailed opinion dated March 2, 2017 and released March 15, 2017 (here), Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr. ruled that the bankruptcy trustee’s claim was a “Securities Claim” within the meaning of the Verizon’s D&O insurance policy and therefore that Verizon’s insurers were liable of the costs incurred in defending against the trustee’s claim. The opinion makes for interesting reading for anyone interested in how these kinds of disputes can arise, and also has some important practical lessons.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: When Is a Claim a “Securities Claim”?
D&O Insurance: Prior and Pending Litigation Exclusion Doesn’t Preclude Coverage, Late Notice Does
A recent summary judgment ruling in a D&O insurance coverage lawsuit in the District of Connecticut addressed several potentially preclusive coverage issues. In her February 28, 2017 opinion (here), Judge Vanessa Bryant, applying Connecticut law, ultimately held that coverage for the underlying claim was precluded due to the insured’s late provision of notice of claim, a conclusion that under the facts presented arguably is unremarkable. What makes Judge Bryant’s opinion interesting is not her ruling on the notice of claim issue, but rather her analysis of other issues, particularly her conclusion that the “related claim” and “prior or pending litigation” exclusions did not preclude coverage. The facts involved present other seemingly critical issues that Judge Bryant’s decision does not address.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Prior and Pending Litigation Exclusion Doesn’t Preclude Coverage, Late Notice Does
D&O Insurance: Convictions, Appeals, and the Conduct Exclusion
Most D&O insurance policies have conduct exclusions precluding coverage for fraudulent, criminal, or willful misconduct. However, mere allegations are insufficient to trigger this exclusion. If allegations alone were enough, then many claims that would otherwise be covered under the policy would be precluded from coverage, because many D&O claims involve allegations of fraudulent, criminal, or willful misconduct. These days, the conduct exclusions in most D&O policies require a judicial determination in order for the exclusion’s preclusive effect to be triggered. Exactly what is constitutes a sufficient judicial determination is a matter of policy wording. A recent California intermediate appellate court considered a policy that required a “final adjudication” in order for the exclusion to be triggered and determined that the exclusion did not apply to preclude coverage while the insured person’s appeal remained pending, despite the insured person’s criminal securities fraud conviction. The opinion provides an interesting insight into operation of the conduct exclusion with wording of a type found these days in many D&O insurance policies.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Convictions, Appeals, and the Conduct Exclusion
Fifth Circuit Rejects Hospital’s Argument that Defense Expense Does Not Erode the Limits of Liability
Most management liability insurance policies are written on a defense-costs-inside-the-limits basis, meaning that covered defense costs erode the limits of liability as the expenses are incurred. Though this is a well-established arrangement within the industry for this type of insurance, the erosion of limits by defense expenses sometimes comes as an unwelcome surprise to a policyholder, usually in the middle of a serious claim. A recent federal appellate case involved an effort by a community hospital system in Mississippi to try to argue that its expenses incurred in defending an underlying claim did not erode the limits of its management liability insurance policy.
In a March 1, 2017 opinion (here), the Fifth Circuit, applying Mississippi law, rejected the hospital system’s arguments and held that under the terms of the policy, the system’s expenses defending the underlying claim did erode the applicable policy limits. While the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion in that regard arguably is unremarkable, it does provide an opportunity to step back and consider the limits erosion feature of these kinds of policies.
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Rejects Hospital’s Argument that Defense Expense Does Not Erode the Limits of Liability
Book Review: Directors & Officers Liability Insurance Deskbook
Those of us involved in the world of D&O liability insurance are well aware that the coverage issues often are technical and the relevant legal principles can change quickly as a result of evolving case law. It would be valuable for practitioners in this area to have access to a reliable resource where the key principles are described and where the key case law authority can quickly be located. Fortunately, there is such a resource. It is the “Directors & Officers Liability Deskbook” (about which refer here), an American Bar Association publication written and edited by attorneys from the Sedgwick law firm. The book’s recently published Fourth Edition is a timely update. Every D&O liability insurance practitioner and indeed anyone looking for a quick and ready resource on D&O liability insurance coverage issuers will welcome this updated edition.
Continue Reading Book Review: Directors & Officers Liability Insurance Deskbook
D&O Insurance: Over Two-Year Notice Delay Does Not Bar Coverage Where Delay Did not Cause Prejudice
As anyone involved in the liability insurance claims knows, late notice of claim is a recurring problem. When policyholders’ notice of claim is late, liability insurers will often contend that the late notice precludes coverage. However, many jurisdictions have a so-called “notice prejudice” rule, specifying that insurers can deny coverage for late notice only if the late provision of the notice prejudiced the insurer. One of the states imposing the notice prejudice rule is Maryland, where the rule is statutory. Even where the notice prejudice rule applies, there is still the question of what must be shown in order for the rule to apply.
A January 27, 2017 decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court), held that a non-profit organization D&O insurer was not prejudiced by, and therefore could not deny coverage for, the policyholder’s two-and-a-half year delay in providing notice of claim, where the underlying lawsuit had been stayed almost the entire time and where the insurer could not have done anything to avoid the adverse factual determinations in a related but separate proceeding. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of the notice prejudice rule in protecting policyholder’s rights under liability insurance policies. The Maryland Court of Appeals’ opinion in the case can be found here. A February 6, 2017 post about the court’s ruling on the Hunton & Williams law firm’s Insurance Recovery Blog can be found here.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Over Two-Year Notice Delay Does Not Bar Coverage Where Delay Did not Cause Prejudice