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.
Continue Reading Not Providing Notice of Subpoena That Wasn’t a Claim Doesn’t Bar Coverage for Later Lawsuit
Ongoing SEC Investigation is a “Claim” Sufficient to Trigger Prior Claim Exclusion
In an insurance coverage dispute arising out of the high-profile and long-running SEC investigation of and enforcement action against the investment firm Patriarch Partners and its CEO Lynn Tilton, a federal district court judge has ruled that coverage under Patriarch’s excess D&O insurance policy is precluded under the policy’s “Pending and Prior Claim” exclusion, because the investigation pending at the time the excess policy incepted represented a “Claim” under the relevant policy language. The court’s analysis includes an interesting discussion of the interaction between the SEC’s investigative actions and the applicable definition of the term “Claim.” The court’s analysis also involves a consideration of the implications for coverage purposes of the various stages within the SEC’s investigative processes. Southern District of New York Judge Valerie Caproni’s September 22, 2017 opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Ongoing SEC Investigation is a “Claim” Sufficient to Trigger Prior Claim Exclusion
D&O Insurance: No Coverage for Enforcement Action Because Claim First Made When SEC Subpoena Served Before Policy Inception
A recurring D&O insurance coverage issue involves the question of whether or not a subpoena constitutes a claim, as I have noted on prior posts (for example, here). When this issue comes up, the dispute is usually over whether or not there is coverage under the policy for the costs of responding to the
More About D&O Insurance Coverage for Subpoena Response Costs
As I have previously noted on this blog, a recurring insurance coverage issue is whether or not the costs incurred in responding to a regulatory or enforcement subpoena represent covered defense under a D&O insurance policy. In an interesting March 27, 2014 memo entitled “D&O Coverage for Subpoena Response Costs: An Emerging Consensus?” (here
D&O Insurance: Second Circuit Holds Investigative and Special Litigation Committee Expenses Covered
In a sweeping July 1, 2011 opinion in MBIA’s favor, the Second Circuit held that the company’s D&O insurance policies cover the investigative and special litigation expense the company incurred during a regulatory investigation of its accounting practices. This case had been closely watched in the D&O insurance community because of widespread carrier concerns over
D&O Insurance: Investigative and Special Litigation Committee Defense Expense Held Covered
Among perennial D&O insurance issues are questions whether policy coverage is available for defense expenses incurred in connection with investigative costs, subpoenas and the costs associated with special litigation committees. A December 30, 2009 decision in the coverage lawsuit brought by MBIA against its D&O insurers considered all of these recurring issues, and reached some