One of the standard D&O policy exclusions is the Insured vs. Insured (IvI) Exclusion, which precludes coverage for claims brought by one insured against another insured. This exclusion is usually subject to a number of coverage carve-backs preserving coverage for certain kinds of claims that would otherwise be excluded. Many exclusions include carve backs for dilution claims (the Dilution Claims Exception), a provision that is not often tested. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, takes a look at the larger context of AI regulation, takes a look at a recent case interpreting and apply in the Dilution Claims Exception. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her 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 Sarah’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: Diluting I v I
As readers know, directors and officers of both public and private companies face a number of sources of potential liability exposure that can in turn learn to claims against them. One area of potential D&O claims exposure that may not always be considered is the possibility that the individuals could face claims brought against them by their own company, as happened, for example, in the lawsuit that 
As the number of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions has risen in recent years, one recurring question has been whether or not there is coverage under the defendant companies’ D&O insurance policies for these claims. The specific issue is whether or not D&O policy’s “invasion of privacy” exclusion precludes coverage for TCPA claims. In the latest ruling to address these issues, Southern District of Florida Judge 
One area of potential legal exposure facing corporate executives – including even executives of private companies – is the risk of liability under laws designed to protect competition, including (but definitely not limited to) state and federal antitrust laws. Claims asserting liability under these various legal provisions not only represent a significant liability exposure for corporate executives, but they also present a number of potentially significant issues when it comes to questions of coverage under the typical private company D&O insurance policy. As discussed below, a recent paper discussed a number of these issues; I discuss additional issues below, as well.
In a recent insurance coverage lawsuit arising out of an underlying dispute over who was responsible for the lapse of a key man life insurance policy, a court determined that coverage for the attorneys’ fees a management consulting firm incurred in defending against the underlying claim was precluded by the failure to maintain insurance exclusion in the consulting firm’s professional liability insurance policy. Because coverage disputes involving a failure to maintain insurance exclusion are relatively rare, the court’s decision provides an opportunity to consider the exclusion and how it might affect the availability of coverage in certain claims situations.
Many insurance policies contain a war exclusion precluding coverage for loss caused by war. But in world where violent conflicts involve a wide variety of different groups and parties, what exactly constitutes “war”? In a recent coverage dispute presenting this issue, a federal judge concluded that the 2014 armed conflict between Israel and Hamas disrupted its film production activities involved both “war” and “warlike action,” and therefore that coverage for the Universal Cable Production for the costs it incurred as a result of the conflict was precluded under the company’s insurance policy. The case raises a number of interesting issues that are likely to recur in our current unstable and violent world. Northern District of California Judge 
Executives at companies whose securities are publicly traded typically don’t need to be persuaded that their company needs D&O insurance. They understand that the exposures public companies face make D&O insurance indispensable. However, the view of some private company managers may be different, particularly for officials at companies whose shares are very closely held. These company officials may believe their company has little risk of getting hit with a D&O lawsuit and as a result conclude that they don’t need D&O insurance. However, the reality is that D&O insurance is an indispensable part of every company’s risk management arsenal, whether or not a company’s shares are listed.