As I readers of this blog well know, a frequently recurring D&O insurance question is whether or not the policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion operates to preclude coverage. One of the many issues that can arise under the exclusion is whether or not the exclusion precludes coverage if the underlying claim is brought both by claimants that are insured persons under the policy and persons that are not insured persons. In a January 30, 2017 decision applying Florida law (here), Southern District of Florida Judge Beth Bloom ruled that a condominium association’s D&O insurance policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion barred coverage for the a claim brought by two claimants, one of whom was insured under the policy and one of whom was not.
Continue Reading Insured vs. Insured Exclusion: No Coverage When Claim Includes Both Non-Insured and Insured Claimants
Eighth Circuit: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Precludes Coverage for Claims Brought by Both Insured and Non-Insured Persons
You know that the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion is a frequent source of D&O insurance coverage disputes when on consecutive days two federal appellate courts issue opinions interpreting and applying the provision. As I noted yesterday, on January 10, 2017, it was the Ninth Circuit’s turn; the next day, it was the Eighth Circuit’s turn. On January 11, 2017, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion in a grocery store chain’s D&O insurance policy precluded coverage for claims brought by the chain’s founder’s daughter, who had served briefly as a director of the company. The appellate court also affirmed the district court’s holding that the exclusion precluded coverage not just for the daughter’s claims, but also for the claims of her two children, who were shareholders but not directors of the company. The court, applying Minnesota law, held that the exclusion precluded coverage for both the claims of the daughter (who was an insured person) and those of the children (who were not). The Eighth Circuit’s opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Eighth Circuit: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Precludes Coverage for Claims Brought by Both Insured and Non-Insured Persons
Ninth Circuit: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguously Excludes FDIC’s Failed Bank Claims
During the bank failure wave that followed the global financial crisis, one of the recurring questions was whether or not the failed banks’ D&O insurance policies’ insured vs. insured exclusion precluded coverage for the FDIC’s liability claims as receiver for the failed bank against the banks’ former directors and officers . As I noted in a post late last year, the general consensus among the federal appellate courts is that the exclusion’s applicability to FDIC-R claims is ambiguous and therefore that the exclusion does not preclude coverage. As I also noted, however, there was an exception to this consensus, reflecting important wording differences sometimes found in the exclusion.
Consistent with this exception to the consensus, on January 10, 2017, the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, held in an unpublished opinion that the applicable D&O policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion was not ambiguous and precluded coverage for the FDIC’s claims against the former directors and officers of the failed Security Pacific bank. Unlike the exclusion found in many D&O insurance policies, the policy at issue in the Ninth Circuit’s case specifically precluded coverage for claims brought by any “successor” or “receiver.” The Ninth Circuit’s opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguously Excludes FDIC’s Failed Bank Claims
D&O Insurance: Despite Trial Court “Fraud” Determination, Fraud Exclusion Not Triggered
In an August 27, 2015 post-trial opinion (discussed here), Delaware Vice-Chancellor Travis Laster found that Dole Foods CEO David Murdock, and the company’s General Counsel and Chief Operating Officer, C. Michael Carter, had committed “fraud” in connection with a November 2013 “going private” transaction. However, according to a December 21, 2016 Delaware Superior Court decision in the subsequent insurance coverage litigation, because Laster’s findings of fraud were not part of the subsequent post-settlement final judgment in the case, the fraud exclusion in Dole’s D&O insurance program did not preclude coverage for the settlement. Anyone interested in understanding how the fraud exclusion in a D&O policy operates will want to read this opinion. A copy of the Delaware Superior Court opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Despite Trial Court “Fraud” Determination, Fraud Exclusion Not Triggered
Football Player’s Concussion Claims Test D&O Policy Exclusion
As I have previously noted (for example, here), several of the standard D&O policy exclusions are designed to keep claims in the their proper lanes – that is, to make sure that the D&O policy doesn’t wind up picking up losses more appropriately addressed by another policy in a policyholder’s insurance program. One of these standard exclusions is the bodily injury and property damage exclusion – or, as it is more commonly known, the BI/PD exclusion – which precludes coverage for claims of bodily injury or property damage that are more appropriately addressed by a CGL policy.
A recent federal court decision considered a D&O insurance policy’s BI/PD exclusion in the context of a kind of claim that is becoming increasingly common – a professional athlete’s liability claims for head injuries sustained in competition. In his November 17, 2016 opinion in the case, Eastern District of Louisiana Judge Eldon Fallon concluded that former Arena Football League’s D&O insurance policy’s BI/PD exclusion precluded coverage for Lorenzo Breland’s claims against the league related to head injuries he sustained as a player. However, the specifics of Breland’s claims raise some interesting issues that Judge Fallon’s opinion does not address. These issues in turn raise questions about the exclusion’s appropriate reach. A copy of Judge Fallon’s opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Football Player’s Concussion Claims Test D&O Policy Exclusion
Del. Court Holds Settlement Amounts Not Uninsurable Disgorgement
Insurers frequently contend that their amounts paid as disgorgement are uninsurable as a matter of law. Whether or not this principle is true as a general matter still begs the question of whether or not the amounts for which coverage is sought represent “disgorgement.” In an interesting October 20, 2016 opinion (here), Delaware Superior Court Judge Jan R. Jurden, applying New York law to the issue, held that amounts TIAA-CREF paid in settlement of three underlying class action lawsuits did not represent uninsurable disgorgement. Judge Jurden expressly distinguished a series of decisions in which New York courts had ruled that settlement amounts paid in settlement of regulatory enforcement actions represented uninsurable disgorgement.
Continue Reading Del. Court Holds Settlement Amounts Not Uninsurable Disgorgement
Ninth Circuit Holds Applicability of Insured vs. Insured Exclusion to FDIC-R Claims to be Ambiguous
During the course of the wave of failed bank litigation following in the wake of the global financial crisis has been a raft of related coverage litigation addressing the question of whether coverage for claims by the FDIC as receiver of the failed bank against the bank’s former directors and officers is precluded by the D&O insurance policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion. A number of courts have found the exclusion to be ambiguous and therefore that the exclusion does not preclude coverage for the FDIC-R’s claims (for example, refer here), while other courts have found the specific exclusions at issue to unambiguously preclude coverage (refer for example here). In the most recent court decision to address these issues, the Ninth Circuit, in a short unpublished October 19, 2016 per curiam opinion (here) affirmed the holding of the district court finding the Insured vs. Insured exclusion applicability to claims brought by the FDIC as receiver is ambiguous, and therefore the exclusion cannot be applied to preclude coverage for the FDIC’s claims against the former directors and officers of the failed Pacific Coast National Bank.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds Applicability of Insured vs. Insured Exclusion to FDIC-R Claims to be Ambiguous
D&O Insurance: Is a Software Audit Demand a “Claim”?
A standard D&O insurance policy provision specifies that the term “Claim” means, in part, a “written demand for monetary damages or non-monetary relief.” A recurring question that arises under this language is: what exactly is “non-monetary relief”? In a recent case, an Ohio intermediate appellate court considered the question whether a demand for a software audit from a software industry group alleging unauthorized software copying constituted a written demand for non-monetary relief; the court concluded that it did and that it therefore that the demand represented a claim under the applicable D&O policy. The court also considered the applicability of the policy intellectual property (IP) infringement exclusion. A copy of the Ohio Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District’s October 11, 2016 opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Is a Software Audit Demand a “Claim”?
D&O Insurance: Thinking About Two Relatively Uncommon Exclusions
A couple of items crossed my desk last week that made me think about two exclusions that are sometimes found in D&O insurance policies. In each case, the exclusions, while relatively uncommon, could substantially restrict the insurance coverage available at least in certain circumstances. Precisely because these exclusions are relatively uncommon, it is important to understand the circumstances to which they apply and how they can affect coverage when they are triggered.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Thinking About Two Relatively Uncommon Exclusions
D&O Insurance: What is a Claim and When Does Late Notice Defeat Coverage?
Among the key parts of a claims-made insurance policy are its definition of the term “claim” and its provisions specifying the policyholder’s notice of claim obligations. A recent Delaware Superior Court decision by Judge Eric Davis examined both of these basic policy features and considered what is required in order to meet the policy’s claim definition and in order for an insurer to raise late notice as defense to coverage. As discussed below, Judge Davis’s analysis raises some important considerations about these both of these basic policy features. Judge Davis’s September 29, 2016 opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: What is a Claim and When Does Late Notice Defeat Coverage?