
The latest episode of The D&O Diary Podcast is now available. Kevin LaCroix and Sarah Abrams are joined by their first podcast series guest, Marissa Streckfus, Vice President & Claims Manager at RT ProExec, to discuss the current private company D&O claims environment.
The conversation covers a range of topics, including private company business disputes, increasing antitrust exposures, bankruptcy-related claims, and the ways in which D&O policy structure can affect claims resolution. The episode also examines practical claims handling issues, including notice requirements, interrelated claims concerns, and other recurring coverage challenges.
Continue Reading The D&O Diary Podcast Series – Episode 5: Private Company D&O Claims



As I have noted in numerous post on this blog (most recently 
Regular readers of this blog know that among my
As the policy definition of the term “Claim” has expanded in recent years, the range of incidents and procedures for which the policyholder must provide notice to the insurer has also grown. Among the recent expansions has been the inclusion in many policies of a “subpoena” within the meaning of the term “Claim.” As a result, a policyholder’s failure to notify its insurer of a “subpoena” could imperil coverage for a later related lawsuit. However, as a federal district court recently held, applying New York law, the notice requirement is not triggered if the prior “subpoena” does not meet the professional liability insurance policy’s definition of the term “claim,” and, the court further held that the failure to notify the insurer of the subpoena did not preclude coverage for a later suit. The court’s decision sheds interesting light on a number of frequently recurring coverage issues.
Under claims made insurance policies, policyholders must provide timely notice of claim to their insurers in order to trigger coverage. Late notice is among the most common reasons that insurers deny coverage for claims. In order to try to avoid a coverage denial for late notice, policyholders have tried to argue that late notice should not preclude coverage where the policyholder renewed the coverage and where successive policies with the same insurer are in place. In a recent decision, an Ohio appellate court, applying Ohio law, rejected a policyholder’s attempt to rely on this kind of continuity of coverage argument. The court’s decision raises some interesting issues, as discussed below.