D & O Insurance

Subscribe to D & O Insurance via RSS

ednyIn 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.

In a September 16, 2016 ruling in connection with a coverage dispute involving one of these types of settlement arrangements, Eastern District of New York Judge Arthur D. Spatt, applying New York law, rejected a D&O insurer’s argument that because of the assignees’ agreement not to execute on the consent judgment, the insured persons had suffered no “Loss.” The court’s determination of these questions raises some interesting issues. Judge Spratt’s September 16, 2016 opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Consent Judgment Including Covenant Not to Execute Constitutes “Loss”

rehana box
Rehana Box
marie vlassis
Marie Vlassis

As I have noted in several posts on this site (most recently here), one of the recurring D&O insurance coverage questions is the extent of the preclusive effect of the professional services exclusion. In the following guest post, Rehana Box and Marie Vlassis of the Ashurst law firm take a look at judicial developments in Australia regarding this issue. This article previously appeared in the LexisNexis Australian Insurance Law Bulletin. I would like to thank Rehanna and Marie for their willingness to publish their article on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to publish a guest post on this site. Here is Rehana and Marie’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Professional Services: What Does this Term Mean in an Exclusion Clause?

coloradoAmong 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 (here), in which he held that the D&O policy at issue did not provide coverage for the insured company’s expenses incurred in responding to an informal SEC investigation. The opinion raises a number of issues, as discussed below.
Continue Reading No D&O Insurance Coverage for Costs of Responding to Informal SEC Investigation

marylandRegular readers know that one of my recurring  private company D&O insurance coverage concerns has to do with the professional services exclusion and the way many carriers seek to phrase, interpret, and apply the exclusion, particularly with respect to insured companies engaged in service businesses. My concern is that all too often the exclusion is written over-broadly and applied over-broadly in a way that threatens to entirely swallow up coverage under the policy. A July 28, 2016 coverage decision by District of Maryland Judge J. Frederick Motz expressly addresses several of my recurring concerns about the professional services exclusion, as I discuss further below. A copy of the July 28, 2016 opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: More About the Professional Services Exclusion Problem

nystate1In 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 Charles E. Ramos can be found here.
Continue Reading Insurer’s Coverage Denial Relieves Policyholder’s Obligation to Obtain Consent to Settlement

floridaIn a June 6, 2016 opinion (here), Middle District of Florida Judge Sheri Polster Chappell, applying Florida law, held that subsequent claims filed in 2011 and 2012 were interrelated with claims first made in 2008, and therefore deemed made at the time of the initial claim. Because the initial claim was filed before the relevant policy incepted, there is, Judge Chappell concluded, no coverage for the claims under the relevant policy.

In reaching these conclusions, Judge Chappell rejected the policyholder’s argument that the policy’s related claim provision conflicted with the policy’s prior and pending litigation provision (which had a May 2003 date), and therefore should be construed against the insurer and disregarded in light of the prior and pending litigation date. Judge Chappell’s opinion quite sensibly and correctly rejects arguments that other courts (applying different jurisdiction’s law) have accepted, as discussed below. A July 22, 2016 post on the Wiley Rein law firm’s Executive Summary Blog about Judge Chappell’s opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Prior and Pending Litigation Provisions Do Not Undercut Interrelated Claims Provision

wisconsinAs I have noted in prior posts (most recently here), a recurring D&O insurance coverage issue is the question of whether or not an insured person was acting in an insured capacity at the time he or she allegedly committed the wrongful acts alleged against him or her. These questions arise because individuals often act in numerous capacities, but the D&O policy provides coverage only for those acts undertaken as a director or officer of the insured company.

A recent case involved similar questions arising under a professional liability insurance policy that provided coverage for the insured individual’s acts in his capacity as the trustee of two trusts. The individual sought coverage under the policy for claims brought against him in his capacity as a director or officer of separate companies in which the trusts held controlling ownership interests. In a June 30, 2016 opinion (here), the Wisconsin Supreme Court, applying Wisconsin law,  affirmed the intermediate appellate court’s holding that under the policy’s business enterprise exclusion, which precluded coverage for claims arising from the individual’s actions for entities other than the specified trusts, there was no coverage under the policy and the insurer had not breached its duty to defend.
Continue Reading Trustee’s Professional Liability Insurance: No Coverage for Claims Against Trustee Acting as Director of Separate Corporation

nystateA recurring theme on this blog is the problem that the late provision of notice creates for policyholders. Insurers frequently will seek to deny coverage when the policyholder does not provide timely notice of claim. As anyone with day-to-day claims involvement knows, there are a lot of reasons why policyholders fail to provide timely notice of claim. Sometimes the delayed notice is the result of a conscious decision, as, for example, when the policyholder decides that the claim isn’t all that serious. Sometimes, the failure to provide timely notice is the result of an oversight, as, for example, when the policyholder fails to recognize that the matter might be covered by insurance. That this type of oversight might happen is hardly surprising, since even very sophisticated business managers may not be fully aware of what their insurance might cover. When this happens, you would hope that the company’s attorneys would be looking out for them and would ask about the company’s insurance, as a way to help their clients to maximize available insurance protection.

As illustrated by a recent case from New York, it is an all-too-frequent occurrence that a company’s outside counsel fails to ask about the insurance or to inquire whether insurance might be available to protect the company. In discussing the New York case here, I have no interest in encouraging claims against companies’ counsel. Rather, my hope is that by highlighting these issues I will encourage both policyholders and their counsel to include the discussion of insurance into their standard routines at the outset of a claim, as a way to help ensure that policyholders avoid late notice problems and take full advantage of the insurance coverage for which they have paid. A copy of the May 11, 2016 New York intermediate appellate court case, Soni v. Pryor, can be found here. A June 14, 2016 memo from the Pullman & Comley law firm about the decision can be found here.
Continue Reading The Need for Law Firms to Advise Their Clients About Potentially Available Insurance

arizonaThough 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.

These questions arose in a coverage dispute involving a series of lawsuits brought against the board of U-Haul International Inc. parent Amerco. One of the lawsuits had been brought by a former Amerco board member (who was also related by family to the company founder) but the rest of the lawsuits had been initiated  by other shareholders who were not Insured Persons under Amerco’s D&O insurance policy. The various actions were consolidated by court order. The company’s D&O insurer denied coverage for the board’s defense expenses based on the Insured vs. Insured exclusion. In a June 6, 2016 opinion (here), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the exclusion precluded coverage for all of the claims.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Thinking About the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

Readers familiar with my background know that while I have spent the last ten years representing policyholders, I spent the first 25 years or so of my career on the insurer side of the aisle, first as a lawyer representing insurers and later as an insurer employee. Because of that long prior experience, I am generally able to see the insurer’s side of most issues, even when I am advocating on behalf of a policyholder. Though I generally can see where the insurer is coming from, there are two issues that I think the insurers regularly get wrong. Both of these issues arise in the context of private company D&O insurance. The first relates to the wording of the contractual liability exclusion. The second involves the wording of the professional liability exclusion. I discuss both of these issues below.
Continue Reading Two Things D&O Insurers Regularly Get Wrong