PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Directors & Officers Liability

Directors & Officers Liability

NY Federal Court Finds “Insured v. Insured” Exclusion in D&O Policy Trumps General Allocation Clause

February 6, 2023 by Amanda Proctor

On December 9, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether an “insured v. insured” (IvI) exclusion applied to bar coverage for an underlying lawsuit brought against insureds under a directors & officers (D&O) liability policy by another insured under the same policy, and another noninsured party. Thomas L. Gregory v. Navigators Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-04834. Thomas Gregory was an employee of Tarter Gate ... Keep Reading »

Seventh Circuit Finds Pleadings in Same Lawsuit Are “Related Claims,” Despite Addition of New Allegations and Defendants

November 14, 2022 by Alex M. Bein

In a recent decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found an amended complaint filed in an underlying action was a “related claim” with respect to the original complaint filed in the same suit and thus that the matter should have been reported to the insurer during the policy period in effect at the time of the original pleading. The dispute in Hanover Insurance Co. v. R.W. Dunteman Co. arose from a conflict among family members over the ownership interests in ... Keep Reading »

Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Appraisal Proceeding Is Not Covered Under D&O Policy

March 18, 2022 by Carlton Fields

Rubbermaid Plastic Containers

We previously discussed the Superior Court of Delaware's finding in Jarden, LLC v. Ace American Insurance Co. et. al that an appraisal proceeding was not covered under a directors and officers policy because it does not seek redress for a wrongful act." Now, the Delaware Supreme Court has adopted the lower court's opinion and order in full, agreeing with the insurers in finding that an appraisal action was not covered under the policy agreements. Case No. 273, 2021 (Del. ... Keep Reading »

Delaware Superior Court Applies “Meaningful Linkage” Test for D&O Related Acts Analysis

March 11, 2022 by Amanda Proctor

In Options Clearing Corp. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co., the Delaware Superior Court addressed the scope of related or interrelated wrongful acts policy language in connection with SEC investigations and enforcement actions involving the insured, Options Clearing Corp. (OCC). According to the opinion, OCC is a registered U.S. clearing agency and derivatives clearing organization, which provides clearing and settlement services to 18 exchanges. OCC is the sole ... Keep Reading »

Fifth Circuit Finds Coverage for Untimely Fraudulent Wire Instruction Claim Is Not Barred Under D&O Policy

October 13, 2021 by Benjamin Stearns

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a ruling that a directors and officers liability policy provided no coverage for an insured financial services firm that fell for a scam involving a fraudulent direction to wire $1 million from one of its customer’s accounts. After the customer threatened to file a negligence suit against the financial services firm, the firm submitted a claim for coverage under its D&O policy. The insurer declined to defend the ... Keep Reading »

Consent to Settle: Third Circuit Reminds Insureds to Obtain Prior Written Consent Required by a Claims-Made Policy or Face Claim Denial, and Rejects Bad Faith Claim in Absence of a Finding of Coverage Under New Jersey Law

September 24, 2021 by Charles W. Stotter

In a non-precedential decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s grant of summary judgment to an errors and omissions insurer that declined to indemnify a settlement because the insured had settled the underlying lawsuit without obtaining the insurer’s prior written consent, “an express condition of coverage under the policy’s consent clause.” Interestingly, the court noted that the E&O insurer had paid the insured’s “defense costs to the ... Keep Reading »

Delaware Court Finds Appraisal Proceeding Is Not a Claim “for a Wrongful Act” and Dismisses $177M Coverage Action

August 20, 2021 by Alex B. Silverman

image of cookware

The Superior Court of Delaware rebuffed efforts by a policyholder to recover defense costs and interest it incurred in connection with an underlying appraisal proceeding, agreeing with the defendant-insurers that the proceeding did not seek redress “for a wrongful act.” The Appraisal Action Jarden LLC f/k/a Jarden Corp. was a holding company for a number of well-known consumer brands. In December 2015, Jarden agreed to merge with Newell Rubbermaid Inc. for cash ... Keep Reading »

New York Federal Court Rejects Argument That SEC Investigation Constitutes a “Securities Claim” Under D&O Policies

July 13, 2021 by Chael Clark

Recent Delaware decisions reveal a trend of insureds seeking to expand the definition of “Securities Claims” in their D&O policies, and Delaware courts refusing to do so. You can read our discussion on those rulings here and here and here.  In March, the Southern District of New York aligned with this line of Delaware decisions, ruling that an SEC investigation did not constitute a “Securities Claim,” and dismissing a lawsuit against insurers that sought recovery of ... Keep Reading »

Delaware Courts Secure Limited Scope of “Securities Claims” in D&O Policies

April 23, 2021 by Chael Clark

Securities

The federal district court in Delaware recently ruled in Calamos Asset Management Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America that stockholder suits alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with a merger do not constitute a "securities claim" in the context of D&O policies. This decision is another in a string of recent cases that have refused to expand that definition. The Merger and Subsequent Shareholder Litigation In December 2016, ... Keep Reading »

Arizona Supreme Court Finds That Reasonableness of Insurer’s Refusal to Consent to Settlement Under D&O Policy Is in the Eye of the Insurer

April 2, 2021 by Roben West

In Apollo Education Group Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, the Arizona Supreme Court found that the reasonableness of the insurer’s decision to refuse to consent to settlement under a directors and officers policy is determined from the insurer’s perspective — not that of the insured. Apollo stems from a multimillion-dollar settlement following litigation surrounding an education company’s practice of backdating stock options for corporate ... Keep Reading »

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Next Page »
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing