Among the terms and conditions typically found in a D&O insurance policy is the so-called “Insured vs. Insured” exclusion, which precludes coverage for claims brought by one insured against another insured. The exclusion often figures in D&O insurance coverage disputes, as I have frequently noted on this blog. While the exclusion broadly precludes coverage for an entire category of claims, the exclusion often also has exceptions that preserve coverage for certain types of claims that would otherwise be excluded.
In a recent case in the Northern District of California, a D&O insurance policyholder tried to argue that the underlying claim came within one of the standard coverage carve-backs typically found in this type of exclusion, a provision preserving coverage for derivative claims. In a September 26, 2016 order (here), Northern District of California Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., applying California law, held that the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion applied to preclude coverage and that the underlying lawsuit did not come within the coverage carve-back. The parties’ dispute and the court’s ruling provide a useful backdrop to think about the exclusion and alternative wordings that are sometimes available in the marketplace.
Continue Reading Thinking About Exceptions and Alterations to the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion
In order to try to resolve litigation pending against them, policyholders sometimes enter a settlement in which they agree to the entry of a consent judgment against them and to the assignment to the claimants of their rights under their insurance policy, subject to the claimants’ agreement not to execute the judgment against them. The question that often arises is whether, in light of the covenant not to execute, the policyholders have suffered a “Loss” as required to trigger policy coverage.
Among the most frequently recurring D&O insurance coverage issues is the question of the carrier’s obligation to pay for costs incurred in connection with an informal SEC investigation. Indeed over the years, numerous policy revisions have been adopted in various forms by various carriers to address certain aspects of this issue. Yet the issues continue to arise, as shown most recently in District of Colorado Judge Robert E. Blackburn’s August 4, 2016 opinion (
Regular readers know 
In the latest development in the long-running battle of J.P. Morgan Chase, as successor in interest to Bear Stearns, to try to obtain insurance coverage for amounts Bear Stearns paid to resolve an SEC investigation of alleged deceptive market timing and late trading activities, a New York state court judge has held that because its D&O insurers had “effectively disclaimed coverage,” Bear Stearns was excused from its policy obligation to obtain the insurers’ consent prior to its settlement with the SEC. However, the court declined to resolve the question of whether or not the settlements were “reasonable.” The now years-long insurance coverage battle will continue to go forward on the remaining issues. A copy of July 7, 2016 of New York (New York County) Supreme Court 
In a June 6, 2016 opinion (
As I have noted in prior posts (most recently 
A recurring theme on this blog is the 
Though the Insured vs. Insured exclusion is a standard D&O policy provision, it seems to generate a disproportionate number of D&O insurance-related coverage disputes. The exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by one Insured Person against another Insured Person. Among the host of recurring issues are the questions surrounding the exclusion’s preclusive reach when the claimants suing an Insured include both individuals who are Insured Persons and other individuals who are not Insured Persons.