On April 22, 2015, in a sweeping win for health insurer Anthem Inc., the Indiana Supreme Court held that excess reinsurers on the company’s self-insured E&O insurance program must pay the company’s costs of defending and settling allegations that it had improperly failed to pay, underpaid, or delayed paying medical reimbursement claims. The Court rejected
D&O Insurance: Insured That Settled Underlying Claim Without Insurer’s Consent Cannot Sue the Insurer for Breach of Contract or Bad Faith
The Georgia Supreme Court has held that where a policyholder settled an underlying claim without its D&O insurer’s consent, the policyholder cannot sue the carrier for breach of contract or for bad-faith failure to settle. The Court, applying Georgia law, entered its opinion in the case based on questions certified from the United States Court
Management Liability Insurance: If a Qui Tam Action is a Claim, When is it “First Made”?
The federal False Claims Act imposes liability on those who defraud the government. The law also allows third-parties to bring so-called qui tam actions in the form liability claims under the Act; if the qui tam actions are successful, the third-party can receive a portion of the recovery. When a third-party files a qui tam
Court Rules No D&O Insurance Coverage for Civil Theft Jury Verdict
In a summary judgment ruling in a coverage lawsuit arising after a civil jury trial, a Southern District of Florida judge applying Florida law has ruled that there is no coverage under a D&O insurance policy for a jury verdict that included the award of treble damages based on the jury’s determination that the insured
Legal Malpractice Insurance: Policy Rescission for Application Misrepresentation Applies Even to Innocent Insured
Under the applicable Illinois statute, an insurer may seek to rescind a policy if it was procured by an application misrepresentation if the misrepresentation was “made with the actual intent to deceive or materially affects either the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by the company.” But even if rescission is otherwise
Management Liability Insurance: Who is a “Non-Executive” Director?
Many contemporary management liability insurance policies draw distinctions between types of directors. For example, many private company D&O insurance policies provide additional excess defense expense coverage for the benefit of “non-executive directors.” However, these kinds of provisions beg the question of who exactly is a “non-executive director”? A recent decision by an appellate court in
Guest Post: Give Notice on Your D&O Claim…Yesterday
A frequently recurring management liability insurance coverage issue involves the question of whether or not the policyholder has given timely notice as required under the policy, as I have discussed in prior posts on this blog (most recently here). Among the many kinds of notice issues that can arise are questions involving multiple or
N.Y. Intermediate App. Ct. Allows D&O Insurers to Assert Public Policy Defense in Long-Running Bear Stearns Coverage Action
In the latest round in the long-running battle over whether there is D&O insurance coverage for the amounts Bear Stearns paid in settlement of an SEC enforcement action for alleged market timing, the D&O insurers may have finally found an issue on which they may be allowed to try to dispute coverage. Even though, in
Professional Liability Insurance: Two Policies But No Coverage Due to Untimely Notice
In a January 9, 2015 opinion (here), the Eighth Circuit, applying Missouri law, held that there was no coverage under either of two successive professional liability insurance policies issued by the same insurer for a claim against its insured, LSi-Lowry Systems, because the claim was first made before the inception of the second
D&O Insurance: No Coverage for Enforcement Action Because Claim First Made When SEC Subpoena Served Before Policy Inception
A recurring D&O insurance coverage issue involves the question of whether or not a subpoena constitutes a claim, as I have noted on prior posts (for example, here). When this issue comes up, the dispute is usually over whether or not there is coverage under the policy for the costs of responding to the