The traditional Insured vs. Insured exclusion found in many D&O insurance policies is a frequent source of claims disputes, particularly in the bankruptcy context. As its name suggests, the Insured vs. Insured exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by one Insured against another Insured. The typical Insured vs. Insured exclusion includes a provision (often
Fourth Circuit: Guilty Pleas Trigger D&O Policy Exclusion and Insurer’s Right to Seek Recoupment of Previously Paid Defense Expenses
It sometimes comes as a surprise to some policyholders that D&O carriers contend that they have the right to try to recover amounts they have paid as defense expenses if it turns out that coverage for a claim is precluded by a policy exclusion. However, an insurer’s right of defense expense recoupment is by now
D&O Insurance: The Major Shareholder Exclusion
An 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
Thinking About Excess D&O Insurance
In many cases, companies’ D&O insurance programs are structured in several layers, with one or more policies of excess of insurance written over top of a primary layer. The excess insurance is often said to be written on a “follow form” basis, meaning that the primary policy’s terms govern the operation of the excess policies.
U.S. Trade Sanctions and D&O Insurance
As part of its conduct of foreign affairs and of its national security program, the U.S. government has instituted a series of economic and trade sanctions against a number of countries and a long list of designated individuals. The various sanctions programs are administered by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) within the
Guest Post: D&O Insurance on the Agenda of Shareholders’ Meetings in Germany
In the following guest post, Dr. Burkhard Fassbach and Dr. Niklas Rahlmeyer imagine a possible shareholder presentation about D&O insurance at an annual meeting of shareholders in Germany. Fassbach is an Of Counsel with the Dusseldorf based D&O-Specialist Law Firm Hendricks. Rahlmeyer is an attorney in the corporate practice group of the Dusseldorf office of
Yet Another Shareholder Suit Alleging Misrepresentation of Environmental Liabilities
At a time when cyber liability and other hot topics dominate the discussion, potential corporate liability arising from environmental disclosures often does not receive the attention it should. However, as I have previously noted on this blog, environmental issues have been and remain an area on which plaintiffs’ lawyer have been focused. A recently
D&O Insurance: The Basic Value Proposition
I make it my business on this blog to try to write about the latest developments and current trends in the world of D&O, but I think that every now and then it is a good idea to step back and take a look at the bigger picture. For example, let’s consider the standard D&O
D&O Insurance: Insured That Settled Underlying Claim Without Insurer’s Consent Cannot Sue the Insurer for Breach of Contract or Bad Faith
The Georgia Supreme Court has held that where a policyholder settled an underlying claim without its D&O insurer’s consent, the policyholder cannot sue the carrier for breach of contract or for bad-faith failure to settle. The Court, applying Georgia law, entered its opinion in the case based on questions certified from the United States Court
Management Liability Insurance: Who is a “Non-Executive” Director?
Many contemporary management liability insurance policies draw distinctions between types of directors. For example, many private company D&O insurance policies provide additional excess defense expense coverage for the benefit of “non-executive directors.” However, these kinds of provisions beg the question of who exactly is a “non-executive director”? A recent decision by an appellate court in