The court in Fulton Boiler Works, Inc. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 5:06-CV-1117, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28756 (N.D.N.Y March 25, 2010), held that two CGL insurers were obligated to pay for the entire cost of defending thousands of underlying asbestos bodily injury claims, without any contribution from their mutual insured, because they could not [...]
.................................................................................................................................................................
Email This Post
Print This Post
Comment
Tagged as:
allocation,
asbestos,
duty to advance defense costs,
Duty to defend,
long-tail,
New York Insurance Law,
potential for coverage,
potentiality standard,
pro rata
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
