A common feature of many liability insurance policies is a specification that the policyholder may not settle a claim without the insurer’s advance consent. However, some policies, particularly professional liability insurance policies, may require the insurer to obtain the policyholder’s consent to settlement before settling a claim. A recent ruling in a litigated coverage dispute concluded that an insurer that had not obtained the policyholder’s consent before settling a claim on behalf of one but not all defendants had breached the insurance contract, as discussed below.
The Northern District of Illinois’s May 26, 2026, decision in the case, applying Illinois law, can be found here. A May 29, 2026, LinkedIn post by Geoffrey Fehling of the Hunton Andrews Kurth law firm can be found here.
Continue Reading Consent to Settlement? Insurers May Need to Get It, Too
Regular readers know that a recurring topic I have explored on this site is the scope of the contractual liability exclusion found in many professional liability and management liability insurance policies. In 
Commercial insurance policies often are contractually complex. Many insurance policies include multiple endorsements modifying provisions of the base insurance policy form. Interpreting the way that the various parts of the policy work together is an important part of determining insurance coverage. When it is unclear how the parts relate uncertainty results. In a recent decision, the Eighth Circuit found that where multiple policy endorsements modified the same policy exclusion, the net effect of the endorsements was ambiguity, resulting in the conclusion that the exclusion did not apply at all. The appellate court’s decision is a cautionary tale for anyone involved in the insurance placement process.
D&O insurance policies sometimes contain Major Shareholder Exclusions, precluding coverage for claims brought by shareholders’ with ownership percentages above a certain specified ownership threshold. But when is the shareholder’s ownership percentage to be determined – at the time of policy inception or at the time of the claim? This issue was among the D&O insurance coverage question presented in a recent case before the Third Circuit. The appellate court, applying Delaware law, found that the exclusionary language involved was ambiguous, and therefore resolved the issue in the policyholder’s assignee’s favor. As discussed below, the appellate court’s ruling is interesting in a number of different respects.