larger settlement rule

Subscribe to larger settlement rule via RSS

Since the dawn of time, one of the biggest D&O insurance coverage issues has been allocation – that is, the division of loss between covered and noncovered claims or between covered and noncovered parties. After a series of developments in the mid-90s, including the standardization of policy allocation language, litigated allocation disputes became less frequent (though to be sure, allocation is still very much an issue in many D&O insurance claims.) However, in recent years, there has been a series of Delaware court decisions revisiting both allocation issues and what has become the standard D&O insurance allocation provision.

In the latest example of the reemergence of litigated allocation disputes, a Delaware court has held that the “Larger Settlement Rule” should be used to resolve an allocation dispute, notwithstanding the presence in the applicable allocation provision of relatively standard “relative exposures” language. With this latest decision, and in light of the other recent Delaware allocation decisions, some differentiating principles can be discerned, as discussed below.

A copy of the Delaware Superior Court’s June 18, 2026, decision in the Hemisphere Media Group case can be found here. The July 10, 2026, LinkedIn post of Geoffrey Fehling of the Hunton Andrew Kurth law firm discussing the court’s allocation decision in the Hemisphere case can be found here.

Continue Reading Del. Court: “Larger Settlement Rule” Applies to Insurance Allocation Dispute

Before the ice age, before the flood, before some of the people reading this were even born, the big D&O insurance coverage issue was allocation – that is, the division of loss between covered and non-covered claims or between covered and non-covered parties. After a flurry of judicial decisions in the mid-‘90s, after the addition of entity coverage to the standard D&O insurance policy (also in the mid-‘90s), and after policy allocation language became more or less standardized, litigated allocation disputes became much less frequent. Indeed, the last time I had occasion to write about an allocation coverage decision on this blog was in 2007. (Although, to be sure, allocation is still very much an issue in many D&O insurance claims.) It was with some surprise and interest that I read a recent Delaware Superior Court decision in the long-running Dole Foods insurance coverage dispute dealing with the question of allocating the underlying settlements between covered and non-covered amounts. The decision itself contains some surprises, as discussed below.
Continue Reading Delaware Court Rules “Larger Settlement Rule” Governs D&O Insurance Allocation