In recent years, student athletes in the U.S. have gained the rights to profit from their “name, image, and likeness” (NIL). As these rights have emerged, NIL collectives have formed. The purpose of these collectives is for a school’s athletic supporters to have a way to pool their funds in order to create opportunities for their school’s student athletes. The collectives are in many ways new kinds of organizations, and they are certainly organized for new purposes. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, examines the challenges involved with trying to develop management liability insurance for these kinds of collectives. A version of this article previously was published on Law360. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her 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 Sarah’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Challenges of Insuring an NIL Collective
In the following guest post, Alison Finn, Claims Counsel, DWF Claims; Elan Kandel, Member, Bailey Cavalieri; and James Talbert, Associate, Bailey Cavalieri, take a look at the most important management and professional liability coverage decisions for 2019, involving the perennial coverage issues for insurers and policyholders. I would like to thank Alison, Elan, and James 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.
The insured vs. insured exclusion is a standard exclusion in most management liability insurance policies. The exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by one insured against another. The IvI exclusions in most management liability insurance policies typically include a number of exceptions to the exclusion preserving coverage for claims that otherwise would be excluded. In a recent decision, a Texas intermediate appellate court found that the IvI exclusion in an investment management firm’s policy did not preclude coverage for an arbitration award because the underlying dispute arose out of an employment practices claim and therefore the dispute – including even the derivative claims the claimant asserted in the arbitration – came within the exclusion’s coverage carve-back for wrongful employment practices claims. As discussed below, the court’s opinion has a number of interesting features.