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

prIn an interesting March 31, 2014 opinion (here), the Unites States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, applying Puerto Rico law, affirmed a district court’s ruling that the D&O insurer for the failed Westernbank of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico must advance the bank’s former directors’ and officers’ expenses incurred in defending the FDIC’s

As I have previously noted (most recently here), the pace of filing of FDIC actions against directors and officers of failed banks has slowed considerably as 2012 has progressed. Indeed, there have only been two new FDIC failed bank lawsuits filed since May, and none at all since mid-July (even though the FDIC has