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.
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
D&O Insurance: Two More Cases Hold No Excess Coverage Where Underlying Insurance Not Exhausted
Two more courts have joined the growing line of cases holding that excess insurer’s payment obligations were not triggered where the policyholder funded part of the loss below the excess insurer’s limit.
First, on September 12, 2012, New York (New York County) Supreme Court Judge Melvin Schweitzer, applying New York law, ruled in
Can Separate Settlements Improve the Securities Suit Settlement Process?
The negotiated resolution of securities class action lawsuits – and absent dismissal, there is rarely any other types of securities suit resolution – is always complicated and occasionally messy, and often involves inefficiencies and sometimes produces distortions and even excesses. Anyone who has ever been through a securities suit settlement negotiation likely will have had
Excess D&O Insurers Not Required to Drop Down to Fund Insolvent Underlying Insurer Gaps
In a case involving multiple ghosts of long lost companies, a judge in federal court in Manhattan has held that excess D&O insurers do not have a duty to “drop down” to fill the gaps in coverage caused by the insolvency of underlying insurers. The court also held, based on the language of the excess
D&O Insurance Coverage in the Wake of the IndyMac Bank Failure
In an opinion that provides an interesting glimpse of a complex D&O insurance program, on August 24, 2011, Central District of California Judge R. Gary Klausner granted the motions to dismiss of the insurance company defendants in an action that had been brought by a subsidiary of IndyMac bank, which was trying to establish its
Guest Post: Dan Bailey on the “No Broader than Underlying” Excess Provision
As reflected in detail below, noted D&O maven Dan Bailey of the Bailey & Cavalieri law firm has submitted the following guest blog post in response to an earlier guest post on this site. I would like to thank Dan for his willingness to have his comments published here. Dan’s guest blog post is as
Guest Post: The Unpredictable Consequences of “No Broader than Underlying”
I am pleased to reproduce below the latest guest post submission. This post has been submitted by John Iole, a partner in the Pittsburgh office of the Jones Day law firm. In submitted this post, John emphasized that "comments expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Jones
More About Excess D&O Insurance and the Exhaustion Trigger
One of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues is the question of excess D&O insurers’ obligations when the underlying insurers have paid less than their full policy limits as a result of a compromise between the underlying insurers and the policyholder.
In the latest of a growing line of recent cases examining these issues