Does a D&O insurance policy provide coverage for attorneys’ fees awarded in settlement of a breach of contract class action? That was the question before the court in an insurance coverage action brought by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) against its D&O insurer. In a July 11, 2013 decision, Central District of California Judge Dolly
Professional Liability Insurance: Problems with Pure Claims Made and Reported Policies
The difficulty with pure “claims made and reported” insurance coverage was put into sharp relief in a recent decision out of the South Carolina federal court. The question before the court was whether there is coverage for a claim made during the policy period of one claims made and reported policy but not reported to
Seventh Circuit: D&O Insurance Covers Multiplied Portion of Attorney Fee Award
Does the multiplied portion of an attorneys’ fee award constitute the “multiplied portion of multiplied damages” such that it is precluded from coverage under a D&O insurance policy? That was the question addressed in a July 16, 2013 decision from the Seventh Circuit. In an interesting opinion from Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, the
Protection for Public Company Directors and Officers: Indemnification and Insurance
In an environment where public company directors and officers face increasing scrutiny and expanding liability exposures, the indemnification and insurance protections available to them are increasingly important. A July 15, 2013 memorandum from the Gibson Dunn law firm entitled “Director and Officer Indemnification and Insurance – Issues for Public Companies to Consider” (here)
Up Next: Arbitration Clauses with Class Action Waivers in Corporate Charters?
In the latest in a series of decisions in which it has upheld the enforceability of arbitration agreements, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2013 that an arbitration agreement with a class action waiver is enforceable even it meant that an individual’s cost of pursuing a claim exceeded the economic value of the
Professional Liability Insurance: Criminal Plea Precludes Insurer’s Duty to Defend
An insured’s guilty plea to criminal charges relieved his professional liability insurer of its duty under the policy to defend him against related civil claims, according to a June 18, 2013 Order by Southern District of Florida Judge Daniel Hurley. Judge Hurley’s decision is interesting because it addresses the question whether the court can consider
Guest Post: J.P. Morgan Decision Curtails the Phantom “Restitution Defense” to D&O Coverage
As I discussed in a recent post (here), in a June 11, 2013 opinion, the New York Court of Appeals held that J.P Morgan (which had acquired Bear Stearns) is not barred from seeking insurance coverage for a $160 million portion of an SEC enforcement action settlement labeled as “disgorgement,” where Bear Stearns&rsquo
Insurer Breaching Duty to Defend Cannot Rely on Policy Exclusions to Disclaim Duty to Indemnify
An insurer that breached its duty to defend may not later rely on policy exclusions to escape its duty to indemnify the insured for a judgment against him, according to a June 11, 2013 decision from the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals opinion can be found here.
A legal
Federal Insurance Office (Finally) Issues Its First Report
Among its many provisions, the Dodd-Frank created a new Federal Insurance Office within the U.S. Department of Treasury. The Act requires the FIO’s Director to provide a report each year to the President and to Congress “on the insurance industry and any other information deemed relevant by the Director or requested [by a Congressional] Committee.” The
“Disgorgement” Not Precluded from D&O Insurance Coverage Where Firm Did Not Profit from Improper Conduct
In a June 11, 2013 opinion, the New York Court of Appeals held that Bear Stearns is not barred from seeking insurance coverage for a $160 million portion of an SEC enforcement action settlement labeled as “disgorgement,” where Bear Stearns’ customers rather than Bear Stearns itself profited from alleged misconduct. The Court’s opinion reversed the ruling