As this blog has frequently discussed, many limitations and exclusions in liability policies address “moral hazard” situations by declining to provide insurance for bad behavior. One such exclusion is the “personal profit exclusion” contained in most D&O policies, which bars coverage for claims where an insured gains a profit or other advantage to which it is not legally entitled. This exclusion was recently addressed by a Massachusetts appellate court in Winbrook ... Keep Reading »
Directors & Officers Liability
Ninth Circuit Leaves it to Policyholder to Pay Eddie Haskell’s Attorneys’ Fees
Eddie: Well, look, there's nothin' to be so shook about. Lumpy's insurance'll take care of it. Moral hazard lurks around the edges of many disputes about liability coverage. Everyone agrees in principle that insurance shouldn’t help bad actors benefit from their wrongdoing, but parties often clash over where the principle applies. Some courts have addressed the problem by asking if the insured has suffered an insurable “loss.” E.g., Ryerson Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., ... Keep Reading »
Arise and Exclude: Artful Pleading Fails to Circumvent Contractual Liability Exclusion
Awake, arise or be forever fall'n. - John Milton It's not uncommon for plaintiffs to couch their pleadings in terms that attempt to avoid exclusions in defendants' liability coverage. The plaintiffs in Bond Safeguard Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 14-15233 (11th Cir. Oct. 5, 2015), appear to have had this goal in mind when they sought to recover payments it had made under certain surety bonds. The plaintiffs sued for negligence, but ... Keep Reading »
As TCPA Class Actions Soar, Issues Emerge in TCPA Coverage for Claims
Both the number of cases under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the types of practices that those cases challenge have mushroomed within the last several years. Yet a dedicated form of insurance against TCPA claims has not yet developed. Instead, businesses seeking defense and indemnification of TCPA suits have resorted to traditional policy provisions dealing with property damage, personal and advertising injury, and (more recently) the language of ... Keep Reading »
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Insurer on Basis of “Other Capacity” Exclusion
On June 22, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., in an action where the insured sought coverage under a D&O policy. The court found that the claim was excluded under a provision barring coverage for claims “arising out of” alleged misconduct in a capacity other than as a corporate officer and director, and that, accordingly, there was no bad faith as a matter of ... Keep Reading »
Seeing the Finish Line: Courts Increasingly Exempt Claims-Made Policies from the Notice Prejudice Rule
In a majority of jurisdictions, the "notice-prejudice rule" provides that an insurer may not deny a claim on grounds of late notice without demonstrating prejudice. The rule is statutory in some states and judicially crafted in others. Most courts, however, also hold that the rule does not apply to late notice under a claims-made-and-reported policy, as opposed to an occurrence policy. In 2015, several cases have solidified this trend, and some of them actually extend ... Keep Reading »
Cut! Eighth Circuit Excludes Non-Board Member from CGL Coverage for “Directors”
Directors and Officers liability policies are typically precise in defining the job descriptions of the individuals to whom they offer coverage. Recently, in United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Thompson, No. 13-2352 (8th Cir. July 11, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had to decide whether the term "director," which was left undefined in a corporation's Commercial General Liability policy, could apply to a supervisory employee, whom one party ... Keep Reading »
“So What?”: Montana’s Supreme Court Turns a Deaf Ear to Insurers Charged With Breaching the Duty to Defend
Earlier this year, in K2 Investment Group v. American Guaranty & Liability Ins. Co., 983 N.Y.S.2d 761 (N.Y. 2014), New York’s highest court adopted—but then decided against—a rule under which a liability insurer that has breached its duty to defend would be prevented from asserting coverage defenses in connection with the duty to indemnify. That rule is settled law in Montana, however, and last month, in Tidyman’s Management Services, Inc. v. Davis, 330 P.3d 1139 ... Keep Reading »