insurance coverage

Subscribe to insurance coverage via RSS

Ninth CircuitDuring the bank failure wave that followed the global financial crisis, one of the recurring questions was whether or not the failed banks’ D&O insurance policies’ insured vs. insured exclusion precluded coverage for the FDIC’s liability claims as receiver for the failed bank against the banks’ former directors and officers . As I noted in a post late last year, the general consensus among the federal appellate courts is that the exclusion’s applicability to FDIC-R claims is ambiguous and therefore that the exclusion does not preclude coverage. As I also noted, however, there was an exception to this consensus, reflecting important wording differences sometimes found in the exclusion.

Consistent with this exception to the consensus, on January 10, 2017, the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, held in an unpublished opinion that the applicable D&O policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion was not ambiguous and precluded coverage for the FDIC’s claims against the former directors and officers of the failed Security Pacific bank. Unlike the exclusion found in many D&O insurance policies, the policy at issue in the Ninth Circuit’s case specifically precluded coverage for claims brought by any “successor” or “receiver.”  The Ninth Circuit’s opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguously Excludes FDIC’s Failed Bank Claims

delawareIn an August 27, 2015 post-trial opinion (discussed here), Delaware Vice-Chancellor Travis Laster found that Dole Foods CEO David Murdock, and the company’s General Counsel and Chief Operating Officer, C. Michael Carter, had committed “fraud” in connection with a November 2013 “going private” transaction. However, according to a December 21, 2016 Delaware Superior Court decision in the subsequent insurance coverage litigation, because Laster’s findings of fraud were not part of the subsequent post-settlement final judgment in the case, the fraud exclusion in Dole’s D&O insurance program did not preclude coverage for the settlement. Anyone interested in understanding how the fraud exclusion in a D&O policy operates will want to read this opinion. A copy of the Delaware Superior Court opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Despite Trial Court “Fraud” Determination, Fraud Exclusion Not Triggered

David Bergenfeld

In the following guest post, David Bergenfeld, a Senior Associate in D’Amato & Lynch’s Fidelity Bond Practice Group, takes a look at the key judicial decisions during the third quarter of 2016 interpreting cyber and commercial crime insurance policies. I would like to thank David for allowing me to publish his article. 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 David’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Recent Trends in Interpreting Cyber and Commercial Crime Insurance

delawareInsurers frequently contend that their amounts paid as disgorgement are uninsurable as a matter of law. Whether or not this principle is true as a general matter still begs the question of whether or not the amounts for which coverage is sought represent “disgorgement.” In an interesting October 20, 2016 opinion (here), Delaware Superior Court Judge Jan R. Jurden, applying New York law to the issue, held that amounts TIAA-CREF paid in settlement of three underlying class action lawsuits did not represent uninsurable disgorgement. Judge Jurden expressly distinguished a series of decisions in which New York courts had ruled that settlement amounts paid in settlement of regulatory enforcement actions represented uninsurable disgorgement.
Continue Reading Del. Court Holds Settlement Amounts Not Uninsurable Disgorgement

filesA couple of items crossed my desk last week that made me think about two exclusions that are sometimes found in D&O insurance policies. In each case, the exclusions, while relatively uncommon, could substantially restrict the insurance coverage available at least in certain circumstances. Precisely because these exclusions are relatively uncommon, it is important to understand the circumstances to which they apply and how they can affect coverage when they are triggered.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Thinking About Two Relatively Uncommon Exclusions

arizonaThough the Insured vs. Insured exclusion is a standard D&O policy provision, it seems to generate a disproportionate number of D&O insurance-related coverage disputes. The exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by one Insured Person against another Insured Person. Among the host of recurring issues are the questions surrounding the exclusion’s preclusive reach when the claimants suing an Insured include both individuals who are Insured Persons and other individuals who are not Insured Persons.

These questions arose in a coverage dispute involving a series of lawsuits brought against the board of U-Haul International Inc. parent Amerco. One of the lawsuits had been brought by a former Amerco board member (who was also related by family to the company founder) but the rest of the lawsuits had been initiated  by other shareholders who were not Insured Persons under Amerco’s D&O insurance policy. The various actions were consolidated by court order. The company’s D&O insurer denied coverage for the board’s defense expenses based on the Insured vs. Insured exclusion. In a June 6, 2016 opinion (here), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the exclusion precluded coverage for all of the claims.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Thinking About the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

tuneupThe private company management liability insurance environment is constantly changing. The liability environment is constantly evolving. Because of the changes in liabilities and exposures and because of the competitive nature of the insurance marketplace, the available terms and conditions are constantly changing as well. Unfortunately, all too often, some private companies simply renew their management liability insurance programs year after year, without ensuring that their policies contain the most up-to-date terms and conditions available. In order for companies assess whether their policies are current, I have listed some of the important items for companies to look for in their policies. I have added some additional comments below, as well.
Continue Reading Private Company Management Liability Insurance Tune-Up Tips

nystateIPO activity so far this year is well off the pace compared to this time a year ago. According to Renaissance Capital, as of last Friday, there have only been 16 IPOs in 2016, compared to 45 at this point last year, representing a decline of 71%. Indeed, when cybersecurity firm Secure Works Corp. completed its IPO last Thursday, it was the first tech IPO in over four months – and its debut was less than encouraging, as the offering priced below the targeted range. In an environment like this, companies whose strategies included an IPO may find that their plan to go public is simply no longer a realistic – or even desirable – option.

Among the many consequences that may befall a company whose IPO plans are sidetracked is the possibility that it may face claims from disappointed investors who assert that the company and its senior officials should be held liable to them for their losses arising from the company’s failure to launch. As discussed below, a recently filed lawsuit underscores the susceptibility of pre-IPO companies to these kinds of claims, which in turn highlights some important D&O insurance considerations for these kinds of companies.
Continue Reading When Pre-IPO Companies Fail to Launch

dandowhattoknowAfter attending the PLUS D&O Symposium  some years ago, several colleagues at Partner Re thought it might be worthwhile to provide D&O insurance professionals with historical overview of the evolution of Directors and Officers insurance (D&O) in the US marketplace.   As a result, Brian Sabia, SVP Senior Underwriter Specialty lines; Catherine Rudow, SVP Senior Underwriter Specialty Lines; and Nicholas DeMartini, AVP Senior Underwriter Specialty Lines, all of Partner Reinsurance Company, drafted the following article, which starts with the Securities Act of 1933 and progresses through the relevant Acts, key court rulings, and the ups and downs that have driven the D&O insurance market and the evolving features of the D&O insurance policy. Their complete paper can be found here.

I would like to thank Brian, Catherine and Nicholas for their willingness to publish their article 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’ guest post.

************************************************************************

This paper provides an historical overview of the evolution of Directors and Officers insurance (D&O) in the U.S. market since 1933, taking you through the relevant acts, key court rulings, ups and downs of the market, as well as the evolving coverage features of D&O insurance. This paper is intended for the insurance professional as an additional introduction to this increasingly relevant and ever evolving management liability product. 
Continue Reading Guest Post: D&O What to Know: A Guide to the Evolution of Directors and Officers Insurance from 1933 to the Present

micah skidmore
Micah Skidmore

As I discussed in a recent post, on July 20, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion in the Neiman Marcus consumer data breach class action lawsuit. In its opinion (a copy of which can be found here), the appellate court ruled that the district court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs’ fear of future harm from the breach was insufficient to establish standing to pursue their claims. The court held that the impending injuries alleged were sufficient to support Article III standing.

 

In the following guest post, Micah Skidmore of the Haynes and Boone law firm takes a closer look at the decision and discusses some important insurance coverage issues that the court’s ruling about future injuries may present.

 

I would like to thank Micah for his willingness to publish his article on my 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 Micah’s guest post.

**********************************

The recent Neiman Marcus decision from the Seventh Circuit has lowered the bar for plaintiffs suing in the wake of a data breach.  In addition to actual injury, future “impending” injuries substantiated by an “objective,” “substantial risk of harm” and actual costs incurred to prevent or mitigate “imminent” harm are sufficient to support Article III standing.  While the Neiman Marcus decision may provide some clarity regarding standards of pleading and liability (at least for plaintiffs), for those defendants reliant on network security/privacy liability insurance to protect against data breach claims, the opinion prompts an urgent question: does my policy cover liability for future injuries and preventive measures?
Continue Reading Guest Post: Coverage for Future Injuries: Is Your Cyber Policy Up To The Neiman Marcus Challenge?