Recently, in Macey v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., No. 08-6067-cv, 2010 WL 2595299 (June 30, 2010), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the “insured versus insured” exclusion contained in a D&O policy was ambiguous. As a result of the holding, on remand, the district court could consider extrinsic evidence in interpreting the policy.
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
ambiguity,
Carolina Casualty,
contra proferentem,
directors and officers insurance,
Duty to defend,
insured versus insured,
Macey,
Ninth Circuit,
Perkins,
reasonable interpretation,
Second Circuit
In a recent New Jersey appellate decision entitled Somerset Med. Ctr. v. Exec. Risk Indem., Inc., 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 605, A-6214-08T2 (App.Div. Mar. 22, 2010), the court was faced with the question of whether a bodily injury exclusion in Somerset Medical Center’s directors and officers liability insurance policy excluded coverage for the negligent hiring and supervision of a [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
D&O insurance,
insurance coverage,
insurance recovery,
negligent hiring,
new jersey,
Somerset Med. Ctr. v. Exec. Risk
With economic conditions nation-wide remaining bleak, and resulting corporate defaults and bankruptcy filings more likely, corporate directors and officers need to be sensitive about the protections available to them under both corporate indemnification agreements and comprehensive executive liability insurance purchased by their companies. In a setting where the company has sought bankruptcy protection, battles often [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
D&O,
Directors & Officers,
In Re Downey Financial Corp.,
insurance coverage,
liability policy,
Order of Payments
In recent years, the insurance industry has added an exclusion to many D & O policies limiting coverage for claims arising from suits alleging that the company paid an inadequate price for the purchase of its own securities. This exclusion, which is known as a “bump up” or “inadequate consideration” exclusion, often amends the definition [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
D & O,
Delta Fin. Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.,
Directors & Officers,
Genzyme Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co.,
inadequate consideration,
insurance coverage,
insurance recovery,
Keith Meyer
In Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Federal Insurance Company, Case No. 09-3096 (decided March 11, 2010) (unpublished in full-text), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order requiring an insurer to advance defense costs under a directors’ and officers’ (“D&O”) policy, notwithstanding an assertion that the policyholder breached its duty of cooperation [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Federal Insurance Company,
advancement of defense costs,
D&O insurance,
duty of cooperation,
Federal Insurance Company,
other insurance clause,
Sixth Circuit
A recent decision from Judge Berman in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, MBIA v. Federal Insurance, Case No. 08 Civ. 4313 (RMB) (decided Dec. 30, 2009), represents one of the first judicial forays into the white-hot issue of directors’ and officers’ (“D&O”) insurance coverage for the defense costs [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
D&O insurance,
directors and officers,
duty to advance defense costs,
Duty to defend,
entity coverage,
Federal Insurance Company,
Investigative Costs Coverage,
MBIA,
shareholder derivative action,
special litigation committee,
sublimit
According to the Fifth Circuit in Pendergest-Holt v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Case No. 10-20069 (decided March 15, 2010), an insurance company must bring a “separate coverage proceeding” under an exclusion providing that wrongful acts must be “determined . . . in fact” before refusing to advance defense costs. Under standard “dishonesty” exclusions [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
"in fact" determination,
D&O,
dishonesty exclusion,
duty to advance defense costs,
insurance recovery,
Lloyd's of London,
Pendergest-Holt,
separate coverage proceeding
In a latest sign that the Securities and Exchange Commission remains committed to ramping up enforcement and prosecution of securities law violations, the SEC recently announced several new measures aimed at encouraging cooperation with agency investigations. This follows a trend toward increased enforcement capacity that includes a restructuring of the Enforcement Division, a larger, re-organized [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
allocation provision,
conduct exclusion,
dishonesty exclusion,
fraud exclusion
