As I have previously noted on this blog, one of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues arising during the latest bank failure wave has been the question whether the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for a failed bank against the failed bank’s former
D&O Insurance: Prior and Pending Litigation Exclusion Bars Coverage for Lawsuit Filed Years Before But Served During the Current Policy Period
Under which claims made D&O insurance policy is there coverage for a claim that was filed under seal years ago but not served on the policyholder until the policy period of the current policy? If you find the answer “no policy” as unsatisfying as I do, read on. In a September 15, 2014 opinion (
D&O Insurance: Though Specific Litigation Exclusion Does Not Apply, Subsequent Suits Related to Prior Claim Not Covered
As the litigation wave arrived following the global financial crisis, many financial institutions were hit with multiple suits that arrived piecemeal and over time. For D&O insurance coverage purposes, these lawsuits were filed across multiple policy periods. A recurring question as the subprime litigation has worked its way through the system is whether the various
PLUS Regional Professional Liability Symposium in London, September 29, 2014
On September 29, 2014, I will be in London to participate in the Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS) regional symposium. The luncheon event, which is entitled “Dangers of Long Arm Enforcement in a World WIthout Borders” will take place at Gibson Hall. I will be making a presentation at the event on the
Bankruptcy Court: D&O Insurance Available for MF Global Executives’ Defense, Without Restriction
On September 4, 2014, in the latest in a series of rulings on the issue of whether MF Global’s D&O insurers may pay the defense expenses the company’s former officers and directors are incurring in the various lawsuits pending against them, Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn held that the insurers may
Montana Supreme Court: Not Necessary to Consider Underlying Allegations or Policy Terms to Determine Insurer’s Defense Duty
As part of our beat here at The D&O Diary, we read a lot of judicial opinions. We like nothing better than to read an appellate opinion where a dissenting justice and the majority really mix thing up. For that reason alone, we read the recent insurance coverage decision out of the Montana Supreme
Professional Liability Insurance: Application Misrepresentation Precludes Coverage for Legal Malpractice Claim
In a July 31, 2014 opinion (here), Central District of California Judge Fernando M. Olguin, applying California law, granted a professional liability insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a coverage lawsuit brought by the Blum Collins LLP law firm and Craig M. Collins dba the Collins Law Firm for breach Judge Olguin
Management Liability Insurance and Immigration Enforcement
In a May 1, 2014 opinion (here), District of Kansas Judge Sam A. Crow, applying Illinois law, held that neither the EPL insurance coverage part nor the D&O insurance coverage part of a restaurant company’s management liability insurance policy covered the defense fees incurred or the forfeiture amount ordered in an immigration
Despite Policyholder’s Delayed Notice, Insurer Must Cover Subsequent Claims Related to Earlier Timely Claim
On July 16, 2014, the Eighth Circuit, applying New York law, concluded that because a financial services firm’s professional liability insurance policy was ambiguous on the question whether the policy’s timely notice requirements apply to later claims related to a timely original claim, the policy provides coverage for the later claims. The district court had
D&O Insurance: FDIC’s Claims Against Failed Bank’s Directors and Officers Not Related to Earlier Claims, Trigger Separate Policy Period
On July 9, 2014, in yet another in the ever growing line of cases examining whether or not separate D&O claims involving interrelated wrongful acts, District of Puerto Rico Judge Gustavo Gelpi, applying Puerto Rico law, held that the FDIC’s claims against the former directors and officers of the failed Westernbank did not involve