Disputes over notice of claim requirements usually involve questions about the timing or content of the notice. A recent notice dispute involving UnitedHealth Group raised neither questions of timing or content; rather, the dispute involved the question of “to whom” the notice must be sent. In an April 25, 2013 opinion (here), District of
Delaware Supreme Court: Insured’s Payment of Defense Expenses Does Not Trigger Excess Insurer’s Payment Obligations
On September 7, 2012, the Delaware Supreme Court, applying California law, held that Intel’s excess insurer’s defense obligations were not triggered where Intel had settled with the underlying insurer for less than policy limits and had itself funded the defense fees above the settlement amount and below the underlying insurer’s policy limit. A copy of
Fidelity Insurance and the Timing of the Employer’s Responsibility for an Employee Defalcation
On August 1, 2011, in a 2-1 decision characterized by a testy but interesting exchange between the majority and the dissent, the Sixth Circuit held that a fidelity policy provided coverage for nearly one million dollars a bank employee stole from client brokerage accounts. For those who (like me) are not regularly involved in fidelity
D&O Insurance: Subsequent IndyMac Bank Claims Interrelated with Prior Suit, Precluding Coverage for Later Claims under Second Insurance Program
One of the perennial D&O insurance coverage questions is whether or not subsequent claims are “interrelated” with a prior claim and therefore deemed first made at the time of the prior claim. This question can be particularly critical when the subsequent claims arose during a successor policy period; the answer to the “interrelatedness” question can
FDIC Motion to Intervene in IndyMac D&O Coverage Litigation Denied
In a November 30, 2011 order (here), Central District of California Judge R. Gary Klausner has denied the motion of the FDIC as receiver of the failed IndyMac Bank to intervene in a declaratory judgment action involving IndyMac’s D&O insurance. The FDIC sought to intervene because of its interest in recovering under the
D&O Insurance: A Hornets’ Nest of Defense Cost Coverage Issues
Among the most contentious D&O claims issues are questions surrounding defense cost coverage, including in particular questions such as the allowable billable rates or the involvement of multiple firms. In a detailed November 8, 2011 opinion, Eastern District of California Judge Lawrence O’Neill, applying California law, addressed the hornets’ nest of problems involved when
EPL Insurance: EEOC Lawsuit Not a Covered Claim?
Every now and then, I run across a case that makes me stop and say, “What?” I had that experience recently when I read the September 21, 2011 opinion of Middle District of Tennessee Judge John T. Nixon in an insurance coverage dispute involving Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. In the opinion
D&O Insurance: Coverage for SafeNet Options Backdating Securities Suit Settlement Denied
The options backdating scandal may now be ancient history, but questions surrounding insurance coverage for the scandal’s consequences apparently continue to live on. In a September 9, 2011 opinion applying Maryland law, Southern District of New York Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled in a coverage action brought by SafeNet’s excess D&O insurer that, among many
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
FDIC’s Latest Failed Bank Lawsuit Defendants Include Outside Directors and D&O Insurers; Also, Number of Problem Banks Declines
On August 22, 2011, when the FDIC filed a lawsuit related to the collapse of Silverton Bank, which is Georgia’s largest failed bank, the named defendants included not only bank officers that the regulators allege are responsible for the bank’s failure, but also the bank’s former outside directors and even the bank’s D&O insurers. A copy of