As readers know, directors and officers of both public and private companies face a number of sources of potential liability exposure that can in turn learn to claims against them. One area of potential D&O claims exposure that may not always be considered is the possibility that the individuals could face claims brought against them by their own company, as happened, for example, in the lawsuit that McDonald’s recently filed against its former CEO. The latest example of a case where a company has sued one of its former senior officials is the lawsuit filed earlier last week by General Motors against one of its former directors, based on allegations that the director leaked confidential information to a rival company and to the UAW, which, the company alleges, added billions to the company’s labor costs. The lawsuit, which is interesting in and of itself, also raises a number of interesting issues, as discussed below. A copy of GM’s complaint in the lawsuit can be found here.
Continue Reading GM Files Lawsuit Against One of Its Own Former Directors
Thinking About Exceptions and Alterations to the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion
Among the terms and conditions typically found in a D&O insurance policy is the so-called “Insured vs. Insured” exclusion, which precludes coverage for claims brought by one insured against another insured. The exclusion often figures in D&O insurance coverage disputes, as I have frequently noted on this blog. While the exclusion broadly precludes coverage for an entire category of claims, the exclusion often also has exceptions that preserve coverage for certain types of claims that would otherwise be excluded.
In a recent case in the Northern District of California, a D&O insurance policyholder tried to argue that the underlying claim came within one of the standard coverage carve-backs typically found in this type of exclusion, a provision preserving coverage for derivative claims. In a September 26, 2016 order (here), Northern District of California Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., applying California law, held that the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion applied to preclude coverage and that the underlying lawsuit did not come within the coverage carve-back. The parties’ dispute and the court’s ruling provide a useful backdrop to think about the exclusion and alternative wordings that are sometimes available in the marketplace.
Continue Reading Thinking About Exceptions and Alterations to the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion