insurance coverage

Subscribe to insurance coverage

For the second time in recent days, a court has held that a D&O insurance policy provision operates to preclude coverage for claims against an insured company and its executives that the consideration to be paid for the acquisition of the insured company is inadequate. The Seventh Circuit in a recent decision held that the “inadequate consideration” exclusion (sometimes referred to as the “bump-up” exclusion) in the applicable D&O insurance precludes coverage for a claim that disclosure in the company’s proxy statement omitted information that could have been used to negotiate a higher price. As discussed below, the policy wording at issue was relevant to the outcome. The Seventh Circuit’s January 23, 2023, opinion in the Komatsu Mining Corp. case can be found here.…

Continue Reading “Inadequate Consideration” Exclusion Precludes Coverage for Underpayment of Insured Company’s Acquisition

Peter S. Selvin

In the following guest post, Peter S. Selvin, a partner with Beverly Hills, California based Ervin, Cohen & Jessup law firm where he chairs the firm’s insurance coverage and recovery practice, reviews two recent case decisions involving the question of whether or not D&O insurance policies apply to provide coverage for consumer protection claims arising from the sale or marketing of products. A version of this article previously published in the Los Angeles Daily Journal. I would like to thank Peter for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Peter’s article.…
Continue Reading Guest Post:  Are Consumer Protection or False Advertising Claims Covered by Insurance?

In the following guest post, the guest authors examine issues relating to the Professional Services Exclusion found in many private company D&O insurance policies. This article was co-authored by Matthew Schweiger, AVP Claims, D&O Management Professional Liability, Core Specialty, Jerry Grenon, AVP, Management and Professional Liability, Core Specialty, Elan Kandel, Member, Bailey Cavalieri LLC and James Young, Of Counsel, Bailey Cavalieri LLC. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.…
Continue Reading Guest Post: Professional Services: Where Do You Draw the Line?

As I have noted in prior posts on this site, the surge in special purpose acquisition corporation (SPAC) IPO transactions over the last two years has also meant a wave of SPAC-related lawsuits. In the following guest post, Peter Evans, Complex Claims Director – Executive & Professional Lines, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance, Elan Kandel, Member, Bailey Cavalieri LLC and James Talbert, Associate, Bailey Cavalieri LLC, take a look at SPACs and the litigation risks that SPAC sponsors can face, as well as the insurance issues that can arise in claims involving SPAC sponsors. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.…
Continue Reading Guest Post: Litigation Risks and Insurance Issues for SPAC Sponsors

In the following guest, Yaminah Williams, Assistant Vice President, Hiscox USA, Alicia Garcia, Claims Counsel, Hiscox USA, Katherine Hausmann, Senior Complex Claims Specialist, Hiscox USA, Elan Kandel, Member, Bailey Cavalieri LLC and James Talbert, Associate, Bailey Cavalieri LLC, review the key 2001 D&O insurance coverage decisions. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.…
Continue Reading Guest Post: The Year in Review: 2021 Key D&O Insurance Coverage Decisions

The Insured vs. Insured exclusion is one of the standard exclusions in D&O insurance policies (although these days at least in public company D&O insurance policies, the exclusion is framed as an Entity vs. Insured exclusion). Disputes often arise with respect to the Insured vs. Insured exclusion. In the following guest post, Ivan Rodriguez, Underwriting Lead with CelerityPro, Elan Kandel, Member, Bailey Cavalieri LLC and James Talbert, Associate, Bailey Cavalieri LLC, take a look at a situation that frequently results in Insured vs. Insured coverage disputes – that is, so-called “mixed” actions, in which the plaintiffs include both insured and uninsured persons. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Divergent Trends Regarding Application of the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion for Mixed Actions

In a November 30, 2021 opinion (here), a Delaware Superior Court judge, applying Delaware law, held that the later investigations of the insured policyholder by two regulatory agencies were unrelated to an earlier investigation of the company by one of the agencies. In making this “relatedness” determination, the court declined to apply the “fundamentally identical” standard that some Delaware courts have applied to relatedness issues, but instead applied a “meaningful linkage” test. Because relatedness disputes are so frequent, and because Delaware’s court increasingly are becoming the forum in which insurance disputes are addressed, this court’s adoption of the revised relatedness standard court have important implications.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Delaware Court Applied “Meaningful Linkage” Interrelated Claims Test

The number of False Claims Act cases, both those filed by the government and those filed by qui tam relators, is increasing. As a result, potential False Claims Act liability is increasingly important for companies and for their D&O insurers. At the same time, there have been recent court decisions, applying an expansive reading of D&O insurance policies, that have rejected D&O insurers’ attempts to deny coverage for False Claims Act claims against their policyholders. The recent decisions suggest that companies subject to False Claims Act claims potentially may be able to obtain coverage under their D&O insurance policies – and not only for defense expense, but for settlement amounts as well. An October 26, 2021 Insurance Journal article discussing the insurance implications of the growing number of False Claim Act cases can be found here.
Continue Reading Increased Numbers of False Claims Act Actions and the D&O Insurance Coverage Implications

Geoffrey B. Fehling

Michael S. Levine

In the following guest post, Geoffrey B. Fehling and Michael S. Levine review and analyze a September 2, 2021 Fifth Circuit decision in which the appellate court reversed a lower court ruling and held that a D&O insurance policy must cover a settlement related to a social engineering loss. Geoffrey is a counsel in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Boston office and Michael is a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: 5th Circ.: D&O Insurer Must Cover Firm for Social Engineering Losses Despite Professional Services Exclusion

In  a prior post in which I discussed the “basic value proposition” of D&O insurance, I noted that among the five indispensable elements required in order for coverage under a D&O insurance policy to exist is the requirement that the individual seeking coverage must have been acting in an Insured Capacity. The prerequisite that the Insured Person must have been acting in an Insured Capacity at the time of the alleged Wrongful Act arises from the fact that individuals act in a number of different capacities; it is only conduct undertaken in their capacity as an officer or director of the insured company for which the insurance policy provides coverage.

A July 3, 2021 decision by Southern District of New York Judge Gregory H. Woods, applying New York law, provides a good illustration of how individuals may be acting in multiple capacities, and underscores the fact that while the insurance under a D&O policy is only available when the insured is acting in his or her capacity as a director or officer of the insured company, coverage is not entirely precluded if the individual is acting in dual or multiple capacities. A copy of the Judge Woods’s opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Individuals Acting in Multiple Capacities Entitled to Defense for Acts Undertaken in Insured Capacity