In 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
D&O Insurance: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Applicability to FDIC Failed Bank Claim Held Ambiguous
As I have previously noted on this blog, one of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues arising during the latest bank failure wave has been the question whether the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for a failed bank against the failed bank’s former
D&O Insurance: Though Specific Litigation Exclusion Does Not Apply, Subsequent Suits Related to Prior Claim Not Covered
As the litigation wave arrived following the global financial crisis, many financial institutions were hit with multiple suits that arrived piecemeal and over time. For D&O insurance coverage purposes, these lawsuits were filed across multiple policy periods. A recurring question as the subprime litigation has worked its way through the system is whether the various
D&O Insurance: FDIC’s Claims Against Failed Bank’s Directors and Officers Not Related to Earlier Claims, Trigger Separate Policy Period
On July 9, 2014, in yet another in the ever growing line of cases examining whether or not separate D&O claims involving interrelated wrongful acts, District of Puerto Rico Judge Gustavo Gelpi, applying Puerto Rico law, held that the FDIC’s claims against the former directors and officers of the failed Westernbank did not involve
D&O Insurance: Excess Insurance Not Triggered Due to Insolvency of Underlying Insurer and Due to Insufficient Loss
In a long and convoluted opinion befitting the long and convoluted case in which it was entered, Judge David Grine of the Pennsylvania (Centre Country) Court of Common Pleas, applying Pennsylvania law, entered summary judgment for an excess D&O insurer, holding that the excess insurer’s payment obligation had not been triggered due to the insolvency
D&O Insurance: Liberalization Endorsement Allows Insureds to Rely on New Policy Form’s Enhanced Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Carve-Back
On June 19, 2014, in a case involving so many unusual coverage issues that it seems more like a law school exam question than an actual coverage dispute, New York (New York County) Supreme Court Judge Melvin Schweitzer, applying New York law, granted summary judgment for the former directors of the bankrupt Lyondell Chemical Company
Insurance Coverage: Six-Month Delay in Providing Notice Not “As Soon as Practicable”
Has notice of claim been provided “as soon as practicable” if it is sent to the insurer during the policy period but six months after service on the insured of the underlying complaint? Apparently not, at least according to a June 6, 2014 opinion of a New Jersey intermediate appellate court, applying New Jersey law.
D&O Insurance: Later Securities Suit and Prior FDIC Failed Bank Claim Held Unrelated, Securities Suit Not Covered
On May 8, 2014, Southern District of New York Judge Deborah Batts, applying New York law, held that a there was not a sufficient “factual nexus” between a securities suit filed after the expiration of a failed bank’s D&O insurance policy and an FDIC claim that had been first made during the policy period and
Is Climate Change a D&O Insurance Issue?
In a series of letters sent to individual board members of various major energy companies and to a number of participants in the directors and officers liability insurance industry, three environmental groups contend that climate change denial by energy industry representatives presents a risk of personal liability to the individual energy company board members. The
D&O Insurance: New York Appellate Court Refuses Dismissal for Insurer that Raised Late Notice Defense
A New York appellate court, applying New York law, has rejected a D&O insurer’s argument based on alleged late notice of claim that it had no coverage obligations for amounts Sirius XM Radio had incurred in underlying litigation, holding that the insurer’s policy was ambiguous on the timeliness requirements for notice of interrelated claims. A