A frequently recurring D&O insurance coverage question is whether the insurance policy provides insurance against claimed damages that are restitutionary in nature. The argument against coverage is under a public policy principle that the insured persons should not be able to obtain insurance protection against the return of so-called ill-gotten gains. This question was considered again in a recent insurance coverage decision out of a Connecticut trial court. In a decision that apparently is one of first impression in Connecticut, the court held both that the policy’s uninsurability clause and the policy’s personal benefit exclusion precluded coverage for the amount of a stipulated judgment in the underlying action. A copy of the Connecticut court’s August 23, 2024, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Ct. Court Holds Restitutionary Damages Uninsurable
Commercial enterprises sometimes are organized in complex structures consisting of multiple, legally separate legal entities. The legal separation between the various entities can be significant in a variety of ways. One particular context within which these separate legal identities can be very important is in the D&O insurance context, as the insurance may be structured to apply to specified entities (and therefore not to others).
A coverage defense that insurers frequently raise is the assertion that the amount for which the insurance payment is sought represents uninsurable disgorgement. Beyond the more general question of whether or not disgorgements are or are not insurable is the more specific question of whether or not the amount for which coverage sought represents disgorgement. In an interesting July 30, 2018 opinion in a case involving the investment firm TIAA-CREF, the Delaware Supreme Court, applying New York law, rejected the firm’s insurer’s argument that the amount the firm paid in settlement of three underlying class action lawsuits represented uninsurable disgorgement. The Court expressly distinguished a series of three decisions in which New York courts had ruled that settlement amounts paid in settlement of regulatory enforcement actions represented uninsurable disgorgement. The Delaware Supreme Court’s July 30, 2018 order can be found