California

Subscribe to California via RSS
Sarah Abrams

One of the standard D&O policy exclusions is the Insured vs. Insured (IvI) Exclusion, which precludes coverage for claims brought by one insured against another insured. This exclusion is usually subject to a number of coverage carve-backs preserving coverage for certain kinds of claims that would otherwise be excluded. Many exclusions include carve backs for dilution claims (the Dilution Claims Exception), a provision that is not often tested. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, takes a look at the larger context of AI regulation, takes a look at a recent case interpreting and apply in the Dilution Claims Exception. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Sarah’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: Diluting I v I

Every now and then, a court decision catches our attention. That was the case with the Ninth Circuit’s March 20, 2025, opinion, in which the court held that coverage for settlement amounts and defense costs incurred in an underlying employee and client poaching lawsuit was barred by California Insurance Code Section 533. Section 533 bars coverage for loss caused by “the willful act of the insured.” The troublesome thing about this opinion is that the appellate court held coverage was precluded even though the willful conduct involved was merely alleged, not proven.Continue Reading Are Allegations Sufficient to Trigger California Ins. Code Section 533?

Is a company’s action against a corporate executive to recover the costs of defense the company advanced on his behalf “restitutionary” in nature and are the amounts involved therefore precluded from coverage under the D&O insurance policy’s definition of Loss? In an opinion that undoubtedly will gladden the hearts of policyholder-side advocates, a California appellate court held that it is not. As discussed below, there are a number of interesting features to the court’s opinion. The California Court of Appeals’ November 12, 2024 opinion can be found here.Continue Reading CA Court: Suit to Recover Executive’s Defense Fees not “Restitutionary”

Some of you may have heard: there was a Presidential election in the United States last Tuesday, as a result of which there will be a change in administration next January. This upcoming change almost certainly means a categorical shift in the regulatory environment in Washington, including in particular at the SEC. Many of the SEC’s regulatory initiatives under the Biden administration may be rolled back. In particular, the new administration likely will pull the plug on the SEC’s pending climate change disclosure guidelines. These likely developments at the federal level may mean that, as Cydney Posner noted in a November 7, 2024, post on the Cooley law firm’s PubCo blog (here), State level actions “may, in many ways, take on much larger significance.”

For that reason, it is worth taking a closer look at the ruling last week in the federal court lawsuit in which various business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are challenging the California statutes requiring companies “doing business” in the state to make certain climate change-related disclosures. As discussed below, the Court has denied the plaintiffs’ pre-discovery motion for summary judgment on First Amendment grounds. The court’s interesting ruling may provide some indication of the future direction of the litigation, as well as on the likelihood that the California statutes will eventually compel companies to make the mandated disclosures. A copy of the Central District of California’s November 5, 2024, order can be found here.Continue Reading What Now for Climate Change Disclosure Requirements?

Many private company D&O insurance policies have a so-called antitrust exclusions that precludes coverage for claims alleging violations of the antitrust laws. However, these exclusions are written broadly and often seek to preclude a wide range of kinds of claims, beyond just claims alleging violations of the antitrust laws. A recent case from the Eastern…

In a post last week, I wrote about the recurring question of who is an “officer” for purposes of determining qualification for advancement, indemnification, and insurance benefits. I received several comments about the post, including a note from Keith Paul Bishop of the Allen Matkins law firm, who writes the California Corporate & Securities Law blog. Bishop wrote to send me links to two of his blog posts, in which he explored the California and Delaware statutory provisions relevant to the question of, as he put it, “what makes an officer an officer?” His blog posts provide interesting additional perspective on this question.Continue Reading More About Who is an “Officer”

In a recent decision, an intermediate California appellate court affirmed a trial court’s holding that the professional services exclusion in a healthcare records software provider’s D&O insurance policy precludes coverage for the company’s $118.6 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) of kickback payment allegations. As discussed below, the appellate court’s decision raises questions about the appropriate wording for professional services exclusions in D&O insurance policies. A copy of the court’s June 21, 2024, opinion can be found here. Geoffrey Fehling’s July 2, 2024, post in the Hunton Andrews Kurth law firm’s Legal Updates blog about the court’s decision can be found here.Continue Reading Professional Services Exclusion Bars D&O Coverage for $118 Million DOJ Settlement

Napa Valley

The D&O Diary was on assignment last week in Napa Valley in California. Although I have visited Napa several times in the past, it has been a while since I have been there. I had forgotten what a beautiful place it is and how much fun it is to visit.

My primary purpose…

In an interesting March 18, 2024, decision, a California federal district court, applying California law, has held that insurance coverage may be available under the D&O liability endorsement to a community association policy for a claim arising from funds misdirected due to fraudulent payment instructions in a spoofed email. The court held that because the non-payment happened due to the association’s treasurer’s alleged negligence, the vendor’s claim for non-payment arose out of “wrongful acts” of the treasurer, and therefore the vendor’s claim triggered coverage. The court’s decision raises some interesting possibilities about the potential for D&O insurance coverage for these kinds of misdirected payment claims, and it also raises interesting possibilities about potential coverage for breach of contract claims.Continue Reading Claim for Nonpayment Due to Payment Instruction Fraud Potentially Covered Under D&O Policy

Section 533 of the California Insurance Code provides that an insurer is not liable for loss caused by an insured’s willful act. The applicability and impact of Section 533 are frequently litigated issues in insurance coverage cases to which California law applies. The following guest post surveys the recent significant case law involving Section 533. The article’s authors are Marisa DeMartini, Vice President, Management Claims Liability Manager, Ascot Insurance Company, James Talbert, Associate, Bailey Cavalieri LLC and Elan Kandel, Member, Bailey Cavalieri LLC. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the author’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: 2023 Survey of Significant Decisions Involving California Section 533