PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

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 »

Beware the Honest Hacker: Indiana Supreme Court Finds That Bitcoin Payment Is Not Necessarily Covered Loss Under Commercial Crime Policy Because Not Every Ransomware Attack Involves Fraud

April 16, 2021 by J. Kent Crocker

Computer Hacker Cyber Attack

In G&G Oil Company of Indiana Inc. v. Continental Western Insurance Co., the Indiana Supreme Court considered the emerging area of computer crime coverage. G&G Oil was insured under a multi-peril commercial common insurance policy by Continental that provided commercial crime coverage. Specifically, the policy provided the following coverage provision: We will pay for loss or damage to "money," "securities" and "other property" resulting directly from the use ... 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 »

Gluing Feathers to a Phone Does Not Make a Turkey: Seventh Circuit Finds Mere “Negligence” Label and “Stitched Together” Factual Allegations Do Not Trigger Duty to Defend Aggressive Robocall Lawsuit Under Illinois Law

March 30, 2021 by Benjamin Stearns

In 2015, Ocwen Financial Corp. was sued for its attempts to collect on a mortgage loan that had been discharged in bankruptcy. It tendered the defense to Zurich American Insurance Co., but Zurich asserted that two exclusions precluded coverage and sought a declaration from a federal court that it had no duty to defend the underlying complaint. The district court agreed, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal. The underlying complaint alleged that Ocwen violated ... Keep Reading »

“Specific” Means “Specific” – Florida’s Bad Faith Statute Must Be Strictly Construed

March 26, 2021 by Jeffrey Michael Cohen

The purpose of Florida’s “bad faith” statute is to “avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” To that end, the statute provides a civil remedy for any person damaged by an insurer’s conduct. However, as a condition precedent to filing suit, the policyholder must provide appropriate information to the Department of Insurance and the insurer by filing and serving a civil remedy notice (CRN). The CRN must specify the policyholder’s complaint and provide the insurer with a ... Keep Reading »

Texas Federal Court Finds No Coverage Under Crime Policy for Phishing Scheme Because Insured Did Not “Hold” Diverted Funds and Suffered No Direct Loss

March 19, 2021 by Gregory Gidus

RealPage was the victim of a phishing scheme that resulted in the diversion of its client funds from the bank account of a third-party payment processer, Stripe Inc. In the ensuing insurance coverage litigation styled RealPage Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, the court ultimately concluded that RealPage was not entitled to coverage for its loss because RealPage did not “hold” the diverted funds and because RealPage did not suffer a direct loss ... Keep Reading »

Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Insurability of Fraud and Larger Settlement Allocation Rule

March 12, 2021 by Amanda Proctor

Dole Pineapple Chunks

On March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court of Delaware issued a significant decision in the D&O coverage space, RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Murdock, analyzing whether fraud claims against insureds were covered under an excess D&O policy issued by RSUI Indemnity Co. to Dole Food Company Inc. The coverage dispute centered on stockholder litigation arising after David Murdock, the CEO and a director of Dole, took Dole private through a merger transaction resulting in Murdock ... Keep Reading »

New Jersey Federal Court Holds Virus Exclusion Bars Coverage for Car Dealerships’ COVID-19 Losses; Rejects Public Policy Argument Based on Pending Legislation

March 5, 2021 by Christina Gallo and Charles W. Stotter

We previously described a proposed New Jersey bill that was introduced to the state assembly in March 2020 that would require insurers to cover business interruption losses related to the novel coronavirus pandemic. Almost a year later, the proposed bill has yet to be voted on by the legislature — and the stalled bill is causing significant roadblocks for policyholders who wish to rely on it to escape the application of virus exclusions in property insurance policies to ... Keep Reading »

New York Court Finds Securities Settlements Not Covered by D&O Policies Due to Insured Capacity and Uninsurable Loss Issues

February 26, 2021 by Alex B. Silverman

thief, money

A New York trial court recently granted summary judgment to a group of excess D&O insurers seeking a declaration that their policies do not cover settlements and consent judgments the defendants paid in connection with underlying securities actions. The decision emphasizes the insured capacity limitation in the D&O policy definition of a “wrongful act” and also reinforces that amounts paid as disgorgement are uninsurable as a matter of New York ... Keep Reading »

Target Data Breach Not Covered Under CGL Policy: Court Rejects “But-For” Theory for Loss of Use Damages Where There Was No Evidence of Value of the Use of Payment Cards

February 24, 2021 by Charles W. Stotter

Following a 2013 data breach in which the credit and debit card information of more than 110 million customers was stolen or exposed, Target Corp. sought coverage from its CGL insurers for $74 million that it incurred in settlements with various banks (the credit and debit card issuers) for their costs in issuing new payment cards (both credit and debit cards) to the customers. In a recent decision on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the U.S. District ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • …
  • 48
  • 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

  • Seventh Circuit Affirms Judgment Dismissing Bad Faith Claim Without Viable Breach of Contract Claim
  • Seventh Circuit Affirms Broad Reading of CGL Policy’s “Radioactive Matter Exclusion” to Include EMF Radiation
  • Iowa Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule That Faulty Workmanship Is Not an Occurrence, Leaving Question of Statutory Fraud for Another Day

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