D&O insurance typically defines the term “Claim” to include criminal charges after indictment. However, the coverage available under the policy for criminal proceedings is excluded in the event of a final adjudication determining that precluded misconduct actually took place. But what happens to the coverage if there is no final adjudication but rather the criminal charges are resolved through a negotiation that results in a monetary payment by the criminal defendants? In a recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit determined that the applicable D&O insurance policy’s coverage did not extend to amounts paid in negotiated resolution of criminal charges, despite the absence of a final adjudication – not by operation of the exclusion, but because of the nature of the payments. 
Continue Reading 11th Circ.: Florida Public Policy Precludes Coverage for Voluntary Settlement of Criminal Charges

In a unpublished August 30, 2017 opinion (here), the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a trial court verdict that a hospital system had violated the antitrust laws was not an adjudication sufficient to trigger the improper profit exclusion in the hospital system’s D&O insurance policy, and therefore that the hospital system was entitled to reimbursement of its expenses incurred in defending the antitrust suit. The decision provides a useful illustration of the way that the final adjudication provisions found in the conduct exclusions of most current D&O insurance policy operates. The Wiley Rein law firm’s Executive Summary Blog’s September 5, 2017 post discussing the Ninth Circuit opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Antitrust Verdict Does Not Trigger Policy’s Improper Profit Exclusion

riA recurring D&O insurance question is whether or not a policy’s contract exclusion precludes coverage for claims that the insured induced the claimant into entering a contract through negligent or intentional misrepresentations. In a interesting December 22, 2014 opinion (here), District of Rhode Island Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., applying Rhode Island

minnOn December 16, 2014, in an interesting ruling that undoubtedly will stir up a great deal of debate, District of Minnesota Judge Paul Magnuson, applying Delaware law, granted U.S. Bancorp’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the bank’s professional liability insurers must pay $30 million of the $55 million the bank agreed to pay