One of the recurring issues in D&O coverage litigation is whether an individual director or officer was acting in an insured capacity when the conduct that gave rise to a claim occurred. Because directors and officers often serve in multiple roles, as executives, shareholders, investors, lenders, or guarantors, the capacity question can be complex, but the answer can be coverage dispositive.
Continue Reading Eighth Circuit: D&O Policy Does Not Cover Executives’ Personal Loan Guarantees
On May 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued a highly anticipated ruling, holding that when an individual’s actions span both insured and uninsured capacities, that overlap in role-based conduct is sufficient to trigger the D&O policy’s capacity exclusion. Affirming the July 9, 2024, Appellate Court decision, with modifications, the Court held that the exclusion properly precluded coverage for an individual acting in multiple capacities, specifically regarding underlying self-dealing claims. The D&O Diary previously covered the appellate decision, which had completely denied coverage in full.
Continue Reading New Jersey Supreme Court Affirms Broad Reading of D&O “Capacity” Exclusion
Disputes over notice of claim requirements usually involve questions about the timing or content of the notice. A recent notice dispute involving UnitedHealth Group raised neither questions of timing or content; rather, the dispute involved the question of “to whom” the notice must be sent. In an April 25, 2013 opinion (here), District of
After entity coverage began to be added to the D&O insurance policy a couple of decades ago, a recurring problem in the bankruptcy context was whether or not the D&O policy proceeds were property of the estate under Bankruptcy Code Section 541(a) and subject to the automatic stay under Bankruptcy Code Section 362.
In an earlier post (here), I wrote about a December 30, 2009 ruling in the MBIA coverage litigation that special litigation committee investigation expenses were covered under a D&O liability insurance policy. As I anticipated, the decision has proven to be controversial.
Two law firms that traditionally act as coverage counsel for D&O
In an unpublished August 18, 2008 per curiam opinion (here), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling in the CNL Resorts case that a Section 11 settlement is not covered "loss" under a D&O insurance policy. The appeals court reversed and remanded