insured vs. Insured exclusion

ndcalAmong the terms and conditions typically found in a D&O insurance policy is the so-called “Insured vs. Insured” exclusion, which precludes coverage for claims brought by one insured against another insured. The exclusion often figures in D&O insurance coverage disputes, as I have frequently noted on this blog. While the exclusion broadly precludes coverage for an entire category of claims, the exclusion often also has exceptions that preserve coverage for certain types of claims that would otherwise be excluded.

In a recent case in the Northern District of California, a D&O insurance policyholder tried to argue that the underlying claim came within one of the standard coverage carve-backs typically found in this type of exclusion, a provision preserving coverage for derivative claims. In a September 26, 2016 order (here), Northern District of California Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., applying California law, held that the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion applied to preclude coverage and that the underlying lawsuit did not come within the coverage carve-back. The parties’ dispute and the court’s ruling provide a useful backdrop to think about the exclusion and alternative wordings that are sometimes available in the marketplace.
Continue Reading Thinking About Exceptions and Alterations to the Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

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

Webster_Peter_04
Peter Webster

As I have frequently noted on this blog, most recently here, the question of whether or not the Insured vs. Insured applies to preclude coverage is a frequently recurring D&O insurance coverage issue. In the following guest post, Peter Webster of the Carlton Fields law firm takes a look at a recent Florida intermediate appellate court decision interpreting and applying a D&O insurance policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion. Peter and his Carlton Fields colleague Patricia Thompson represented the insurer in the proceeding. I would like to thank Peter for his willingness 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 site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Peter’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Court Holds Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguous, Precluding Coverage

michigan1Many issues become complicated in the bankruptcy context. That is certainly true of D&O insurance coverage issues. A recent coverage decision out of the Western District of Michigan illustrates this point. In a March 31, 2016 opinion (here), Judge Janet Neff, applying Michigan law, held that the relevant D&O insurance policies’ Insured vs. Insured exclusion precluded coverage for a claim that was first transferred by a bankrupt company to a Liquidation Trust and then asserted by the Liquidation Trust against the company’s former directors and officers.
Continue Reading Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Bars Coverage for Liquidation Trust’s Claim Against Bankrupt Firm’s Execs

minnThe Insured vs. Insured Exclusion is a standard D&O insurance policy provision. The exclusion precludes coverage for clams brought by one “Insured Person” against another “Insured Person.” But what happens when the claimants suing an Insured Person include both individuals who are Insured Persons and other individuals who are not? In a September 22, 2015 opinion (here), District of Minnesota Chief Judge John Tunheim, applying Minnesota law, held that where the underlying claim involved a lawsuit by an Insured Person against other Insured Persons, the entire claim was precluded from coverage, even though the claimants in the lawsuit included other plaintiffs who were not Insured Persons.
Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Applies Even When Claimants Include Both Insureds and Non-Insureds?

tenthcircuitIn an important decision concerning D&O insurance coverage in connection with failed bank claims, the Tenth Circuit, applying Kansas law, held that a D&O policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage for claims brought by the FDIC as receiver of a failed bank against the bank’s former directors and officers. The Tenth Circuit’s decision arguably contrasts with the Eleventh Circuit’s December 2014 decision in the Community Bank & Trust case (about which refer here), in which the Eleventh Circuit had held that the insured vs. insured exclusion at issue in that case was ambiguous with respect to the question of whether it precluded coverage for FDIC’s failed bank claims. However, the specific language in the exclusion at issue in this case precluding coverage for claims brought a “receiver” of the insured company – language not present in the policy the Eleventh Circuit considered — was a dispositive factor in the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion about the exclusion’s applicability. A copy of the Tenth Circuit’s August 6, 2015 decision can be found here.
Continue Reading Tenth Circuit: D&O Insurance Policy’s Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Unambiguously Precludes Coverage for FDIC’s Failed Bank Claims

third circuitThe traditional Insured vs. Insured exclusion found in many D&O insurance policies is a frequent source of claims disputes, particularly in the bankruptcy context. As its name suggests, the Insured vs. Insured exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by one Insured against another Insured. The typical Insured vs. Insured exclusion includes a provision (often

caliAs I have previously noted on this blog, one of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues arising during the latest bank failure wave has been the question whether the Insured  vs. Insured Exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for a failed bank against the failed bank’s former

nystate3On 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