D&O Insurance coverage

aus3An exclusion sometimes found in D&O insurance policies precludes coverage for claims made by shareholders who have a specified percentage of ownership in the insured company. This type of exclusion is called a Major Shareholder Exclusion (or, sometimes, the Principal Shareholder Exclusion). An interesting May 6, 2015 decision (here) by the Supreme Court

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

floridaIn an October 20, 2014 opinion (here), Middle District of Florida Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., applying Florida law, entered summary judgment for a D&O insurer, holding that the insurer was not liable for the stipulated judgment its insured had entered because the policy’s broad contractual liability exclusion precluded coverage for the underlying

paUnder which claims made D&O insurance policy is there coverage for a claim that was filed under seal years ago but not served on the policyholder until the policy period of the current policy? If you find the answer “no policy” as unsatisfying as I do, read on. In a September 15, 2014 opinion (

prIn an interesting March 31, 2014 opinion (here), the Unites States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, applying Puerto Rico law, affirmed a district court’s ruling that the D&O insurer for the failed Westernbank of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico must advance the bank’s former directors’ and officers’ expenses incurred in defending the FDIC’s

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