Claims under Professional Liability Insurance policies and Management Liability Insurance polices are often complex and notoriously expensive to defend. As a result, these policies are usually written on a “defense inside the limits” basis, meaning that the payment of defense expenses reduces the remaining limit of liability. Certain other lines of insurance, such as, for example, general commercial liability insurance, are often written on a “defense outside the limits” basis, meaning that the defense costs are paid by the insurer and do not erode the limit of liability.
In an interesting development, the Nevada legislature has passed, and the Nevada governor has approved, a Bill that prohibits insurers from issuing policies containing a provision that reduces the limit of liability by the costs of defense. I suspect that many in the liability insurance industry are unaware of this legislation prohibiting defense- inside-the-limits liability insurance. I also suspect that, for reasons discussed below, the new legislation will generate disruption in the professional liability and management liability insurance market in Nevada when it goes into effect on October 1, 2023.
Continue Reading Nevada Prohibits “Defense Inside the Limits” Liability Insurance Provisions
One of the perennial D&O insurance coverage issues is the question of whether or not two or more claims are or are not interrelated. Under the operation of provisions typically found in most D&O insurance policies, if two or more claims are interrelated within the meaning of the policy, they are deemed to be a single claim that was first made when the first of the claims was filed. This seemingly technical determination can have important implications because it controls whether only one or whether multiple insurance towers apply to the claims. A recent ruling in a coverage dispute in the Western District of Washington provides interesting insight into the kinds of problems relatedness disputes can present. It is also an interesting example of a case in which even though there undoubtedly were overlaps between two claims, the court ultimately determined that the claims were unrelated for D&O insurance coverage purposes. The court’s August 8, 2022 opinion in the case can be found 
While it may or may not be true, as 
Readers will recall that at the peak of the #MeToo movement, several companies were hit with securities lawsuits and other types of D&O claims relating to underlying allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment. Among these lawsuits was 
In an interesting decision that explores the standard to be used in determining whether an earlier claim and a later claim are interrelated, the Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court ruling that a later filed opt-out action is related to a securities lawsuit earlier filed against First Solar, and therefore that the opt-out action is not covered under the D&O insurance program in place at the time the opt-out action was filed. Interestingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court even though the appellate court held that the lower court had erroneously applied a “fundamentally identical” standard to the relatedness question rather than the relatedness standard defined by the policies. The Delaware Supreme Court’s March 16, 2022 opinion can be found 
It was great to be in New York on Tuesday and Wednesday this week for the return of the live version of the annual PLUS D&O Symposium. I am certain I was not the only one at the event who was delighted to be among friends and colleagues again and to meet so many new people. In one sense, it was a little awkward for everyone, since it has been so long since any of us have been around other people. But with appropriate precautions in place, everything went well and it was just fine being in a large gathering again. My congrats to the Conference organizers for putting together a great conference and to the PLUS staff for putting on a great show.