Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

A California appeals court recently reversed a trial court’s determination that a D&O insurer had no duty to reimburse legal fees incurred by a company’s former CFO in defending against an SEC civil enforcement action, shareholder derivative claims, and counterclaims by the company asserting that the CFO breached his indemnification agreement. In doing so, the appeals court rejected the insurer’s argument that the defense costs the company advanced to the CFO were “restitutionary” damages excluded from the D&O policy’s definition of loss.

The court explained that its ruling favoring broad executive protection was consistent with the generally understood purpose of D&O liability insurance—to provide protection for individuals whose business decisions, made in their capacity as the management of a corporation, subject them to the risk of personal liability for losses that the corporation or its shareholders may incur.

Following an investigation involving public companies potentially impacted by the 2020 SolarWinds software compromise, the US Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged several companies with making materially misleading disclosures regarding cybersecurity risks and intrusions. The SEC’s enforcement is the latest example of “cyber as a D&O risk,” underscoring the importance of maintaining robust directors and officers (D&O) liability coverage, along with cyber insurance, as part of a comprehensive liability insurance program designed to respond to cyber incidents.

In a recent client alert, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP real estate attorney Laurie Grasso and insurance attorneys Geoffrey B. Fehling, Cary D. Steklof, and Evan J. Warshauer discuss the important lesson real estate companies and their officers and directors can take away from the Illinois federal district court’s decision in Old Guard Insurance Company v. Riverway Property Management, LLC et al., No. 1:23-cv-01098 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2024). The court found a commercial general liability insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a property management company or its owner in lawsuits that included allegations of intentional conduct, holding that the allegations did not fall within the policies’ definition of occurrence, which required “an accident.”

In a recent client alert, Hunton insurance lawyers Lorelie S. Masters, Geoffrey B. Fehling, and Charlotte E. Leszinske discuss emerging ESG-related risks and insurers’ interests in those risks when underwriting insurance policies.  Increased focus on ESG by regulators and the public have brought ESG programs and ESG-related liabilities, such as “greenwashing,” to the forefront.  Insurers are also paying attention to these risks and have signaled that their clients’ efforts to address ESG may factor into underwriting of their insurance policies.  Many emerging ESG risks may be covered under existing corporate insurance programs, including directors and officers insurance.  Before incurring a claim, companies should proactively evaluate their insurance program and assess ESG-related risks, expecting that they may need to explain such assessments to their insurers.  Read the full alert here.  

Recent high-profile cases involving Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) have spotlighted the need for robust directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance tailored to cybersecurity executives. The SEC charges against the former SolarWinds CISO—which were not dismissed in the highly-anticipated decision truncating the SEC’s case against the company—and the 2022 criminal conviction of Uber’s former CISO underscore the growing personal liability risks faced by security leaders.

A recent New Jersey Superior Court decision highlights the risks policyholders face when officers or directors serve dual-capacity roles, such as participating on boards for multiple companies.

In a recent Client Alert, Hunton insurance partner Geoffrey Fehling discusses the impact of the California appellate court decision Practice Fusion, Inc. v. Freedom Specialty Insurance Co., where the court denied coverage under a directors and officers liability policy for a software developer’s $118 million settlement with the US Department of Justice to resolve allegations that the company violated anti-kickback laws in designing and implementing sponsored alerts in electronic health records software. 

We have previewed in prior posts the ways artificial intelligence is rapidly changing the way business operate, including the many ways AI has influenced the insurance market, creating both opportunities and risks for policyholders. We later highlighted, based on a recent securities lawsuit, how corporate management may be at risk for the alleged use or misuse of AI and how companies should evaluate their directors and officers (D&O) and management liability policies to ensure that they are prepared to respond to and mitigate AI-driven risks, including claims alleging that a company or its officers and directors made misrepresentations about AI.

This series addresses whether your company should consider protecting its products under the SAFETY Act, which serves as a governmental seal of quality and offers powerful litigation and liability benefits.  Part I of this series addressed the benefits of obtaining SAFETY Act coverage.  This post explains the levels of protection under the SAFETY Act and how your company should evaluate whether its products may be eligible.

Human beings are social creatures. In today’s world, social media platforms are ever-growing and there are more users than ever before. But, at what cost? The use of social media has consequences. Policyholders should look to their CGL insurers for defense coverage, under Coverage A or Coverage B.

The SAFETY Act is a highly effective risk management tool created to incentivize the development of anti-terrorism technologies—broadly defined—and to provide protections to providers of products and services meant to prevent or mitigate physical and cyber-attacks.  Among other benefits, companies receiving SAFETY Act coverage for their technologies have their potentially liability associated with an act of terrorism capped at the amount of insurance coverage required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).  Companies seeking to reduce their exposure to liability associated with cyber or physical attacks should consider applying for designation or certification under the SAFETY Act.  DHS has also approved a wide variety of other technologies and security programs for protection under the SAFETY Act. 

As we explained in our introductory post, rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) present multifaceted risks for businesses of all types. The magnitude, fluidity and specificity of these risks underscore why businesses should continually audit their own unique AI risks profiles to best understand and respond to the hazards posed by AI.

A federal court recently ruled that a carrier must defend its policyholder against a claim involving the treasurer’s erroneous payment to a scammer. The ruling shows that a “wrongful act” under a D&O policy need not be an egregious act of wrongdoing, that coverage may hinge on whether extrinsic evidence can establish coverage, and that breach of contract claims are not always uninsurable as a matter of law.

Last week, a California federal judge held that a D&O liability insurer must advance subpoena-related defense costs on behalf of two former biotech directors and officers after the insurer could not provide conclusive evidence that the subpoenas alleged actual wrongdoing by the individuals after the company’s merger, as required to trigger the policy’s “Change in Control” exclusion. See AmTrust Int’l Underwriters DAC, Plaintiff, v. 180 Life Sciences Corp., et al., N.D. Cal. No. 22-CV-03844-BLF, 2024 WL 557724 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2024). The decision highlights the interplay of two significant D&O coverage issues—government investigations and M&A transactions—and underscores why policyholders must pay close attention to how their liability insurance policies may be impacted by a merger, acquisition, asset sale or similar deal.

D&O, E&O, and other professional liability insurers often raise the insurability, or rather “uninsurability” loss defense. Consistent with our prior analysis of the ways the Ohio district court erred in assessing insurability, the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Huntington National Bank v. AIG outlines how courts should evaluate insurability defenses, particularly in the absence of public policy rendering a loss uninsurable.

On September 26, 2023, KPMG published independent research showing that three-quarters of global businesses feel they are not ready for new ESG reporting regulations. KPMG’s findings are the latest reminder to businesses—and their directors and officers and other insureds—about the important role that Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance can play as businesses and organizations strive for ESG compliance and work to mitigate ESG-related risks.

As previewed in part 1 of our AI Policyholder’s Guide, we now discuss how businesses can assess their AI risk to ensure that they are properly positioned to secure insurance coverage should those risks come to fruition. Because no two businesses will have the same AI risk profile, businesses should consider undertaking organization-wide AI risk audits to evaluate their unique AI risk profile.

Understanding the nature of AI-focused legal risk is not only important for business planning, but essential to crafting a comprehensive AI-specific risk management plan. Indeed, because insurance is often underwritten relative to specific risks, knowing the risks to be insured is a prerequisite to procuring the right type of coverage with terms most suitable to a given risk profile.

Most modern liability insurance policies have provisions addressing whether different claims are “related” (or “interrelated”) for assessing potential coverage. Because the answer of whether two claims are “related” depends heavily on the facts giving rise to the underlying claims, the policy language, and applicable law, questions about relatedness can lead to significant insurance coverage disputes.

Last week, the Delaware Insurance Commissioner announced a series of process and regulatory improvements to the state’s captive regime. Building upon last year's significant amendments to DGCL 145(g) expressly permitting captives to cover D&O liability, Bulletin No. 14 outlines several requirements for captives to write Side A D&O policies for Delaware corporations, including several process changes intended to improve approval timelines and speed to market.

Major sneaker brands have capitalized on new trends in technology and social media to hype sneaker culture. As sneakers become more popular, sneaker collections increase in value, thus increasing financial exposure for collectors and other entities in the sneaker industry. One might first think of theft, authentication, fire, floods, or market valuation as the general risks associated with sneaker collections. But many sneaker companies have made headlines over the past few years with numerous lawsuits against other sneaker companies and entities with issues ranging from traditional patent battles to exhaustive fights against counterfeiters. Often overlooked by collectors and sneaker companies alike, insurance can and does play a critical role in helping both collectors and companies faced with unexpected liability related to sneaker culture.

The Delaware Supreme Court recently affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a mortgage lender who sought coverage for a government investigation under its management liability insurance policy, in the case ACE American Ins. Co. v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., No. 360, 2022 (Del.). We previously reported on the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the policyholder and ruling in favor of the policyholder on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments that it had no duty to defend the policyholder in connection with a $15 million False Claims Act (FCA) investigation and settlement.

As explained in a recent alert, now is the time for public companies to adopt compliant clawback policies. This is because the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently approved final rules on June 9, 2023, that required national securities exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Nasdaq to implement new listing standards requiring public companies to institute compliant incentive-based compensation clawback policies. The NYSE and Nasdaq rules require listed companies to adopt clawback policies by December 1, 2023, which policies must apply to incentive compensation awarded after October 2, 2023. As public companies prepare to adopt compliant policies before the December 1, 2023 deadline, they should not only consider the clawback policy itself, but also the overlap between that policy and any applicable directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance. Doing so is important to address the potential new exposures created by the new SEC rules.

Courts nationwide have issued a wide range of decisions on insurance coverage for lawsuits arising out of the opioid epidemic under commercial general liability policies. On August 17, 2023, a North Carolina federal court illustrated why coverage is also available under Directors and Officers (D&O) liability insurance policies. In The North Carolina Mutual Whole Company v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 1:22-CV-553, 2023 WL 5312234 (M.D.N.C.), the court determined a drug wholesaler’s D&O policy provides coverage for more than one hundred underlying lawsuits, rejecting the insurer’s argument that two exclusions, the contract and professional services exclusions, barred coverage.

Last week, we published a client alert discussing the importance of cyber and directors and officers liability insurance for companies and their executives to guard against cyber-related exposures.  In today’s ever-changing threat landscape, all organizations are at risk of damaging cyber incidents, and resulting investigations and lawsuits, underscoring the importance of utilizing all tools in a company’s risk mitigation toolkit, including insurance, to address these exposures. 

Hardly a day passes without hearing about another major cyber incident. Recent studies show that cybersecurity incidents are becoming more common, but they are also costly, with some reports estimating an average cost of $9.44 million for breaches in the US. In recognition of this mounting problem, government agencies continue to ramp up enforcement and issue new rules, regulations and other guidance aimed at curbing cyber risks. Last week, the SEC adopted final rules requiring registered entities to periodically disclose material cybersecurity incidents and annually disclose their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance plans. In announcing the new rules, the SEC specifically noted that “an ever-increasing share of economic activity is dependent on electronic systems.” According to SEC Chair Gary Gensler, “Whether a company loses a factory in a fire—or millions of files in a cybersecurity incident—it may be material to investors.” 

We recently posted about Nevada becoming the first state to prohibit defense-within-limits provisions in liability insurance policies. Defense-within-limits provisions—resulting in what is called “eroding” or “wasting” policies—reduce the policy’s applicable limit of insurance by amounts the insurer pays to defend the policyholder against a claim or suit. 

The Fifth Circuit recently held that Blue Bell Creameries’ commercial general liability (CGL) insurers do not have a duty to defend the ice cream company in a shareholder lawsuit, which arose from a Listeria outbreak. The decision underscores the importance of coordination of different coverages and policies across insurance programs, as well as the potential perils policyholders may face if forced to seek recovery for certain losses under non-traditional policies.

Nevada recently became the first state to prohibit defense-within-limits provisions in liability insurance policies. Defense-within-limits provisions—resulting in what’s called “eroding” or “wasting” policies—reduce the policy’s applicable limit of insurance by amounts the insurer pays to defend the policyholder against a claim or suit. These provisions are commonly included in errors and omissions (E&O), directors and officers (D&O) and other management liability policies. This is in contrast to other policies, most commonly commercial general liability policies, which provide defense “outside of limits” where defense costs do not reduce the policy’s limit. 

Directors and officers should take note of a recent decision from the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concerning access to D&O insurance policy proceeds.  In In re SVB Financial Group, Case No. 23-10367 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2023)^[1], the Bankruptcy Court found cause to lift the automatic stay to allow directors and officers to access the proceeds of SVB Financial Group’s (“SVB”) directors and officers (“D&O”) insurance policies to pay for legal costs incurred in responding to investigations and defending litigation.  Moreover, it declined to impose a “soft cap” on the advance of defense costs. 

The False Claims Act continues to make headlines. The DOJ announced earlier this year that its fiscal-year recoveries—across 351 settlements and judgments—exceeded $2.2 billion, which was the second-highest number of settlements recorded in a single year. More recently, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument and is poised to issue a decision in a closely-watched FCA case that could radically change the balance of power between the government and industry.

Artificial intelligence technology (“AI”) is poised to radically improve human functionality, although some say the technology is quietly learning how to overtake it. In the meantime, the insurance industry has been using AI to save time, attain consistency and improve risk mitigation. However, while the industry looks forward to cost savings and better business utilizing generative AI, some insurers have simultaneously cautioned policyholders about the potential risks that reliance on AI may pose. Insurer’s cautionary statements cast doubt on the integrity of their own reliance on the technology.

As discussed in a recent client alert, on March 24, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill (HB) 837 into law, making it more difficult and costly for insurance policyholders of all sizes to sue insurers for bad faith by eliminating fee-shifting for most policyholders and requiring something “more than” negligence for bad faith claims.

A New York Federal judge recently ordered a directors and officers liability insurer to pay $4.5 million that an investment firm had spent defending an arbitration proceeding brought by a former executive. The court found that allegations of constructive termination and related retaliation triggered an exception to the D&O policy’s insured-versus-insured exclusion for employment-related wrongful acts, rejecting the insurer’s argument that, notwithstanding the former executive’s count for constructive termination, his status as an “Insured Person” triggered the exclusion where the majority of counts in the arbitration related to alleged breaches of the firm’s operating agreement.  

As discussed in a recent client alert, a Delaware court issued a significant opinion in a directors and officers liability claim involving a special purpose acquisition company. In an issue of first impression in Delaware, the Superior Court in Clover Health Investments Corp. v. Berkley Insurance Co. held that directors and officers of the post-merger entity were “Insured Persons” under the SPAC’s D&O policy because they were acting in “functionally equivalent” roles to directors and officers of the SPAC when the alleged pre-merger wrongful conduct took place. The court’s pro-policyholder rulings on coverage for government investigations, based on an ambiguous definition of “Claim,” and allocation of defense costs under the Larger Settlement Rule also have potential ramifications on future D&O claims in Delaware outside of SPAC deals.

Earlier this month, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Call One Inc., a tele-communications company, must litigate a claim by its insurer, Berkley Insurance Company, seeking to rescind coverage based on the information provided by the policyholder in its application for insurance. The coverage dispute is illustrative of insurers’ increased scrutiny of the answers to all policy application questions—including where no response is provided—to identify new or additional grounds to avoid coverage, even if it requires rescission of the policy. Policyholders should thus carefully consider all questions and requirements during the policy application process (including during renewal) to avoid potential disclosure disputes should a claim arise.

The Delaware Chancery Court recently held that the duty of oversight extended to corporate officers. The important decision came after McDonald’s shareholders sued the company’s former head of human resources, alleging that the officer breached his duty of oversight by “allowing a corporate culture to develop that condoned sexual harassment and misconduct.” In that same decision, Vice Chancellor Laster also determined that acts of sexual harassment can constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. Officers are rightly focused on the potential ramifications on their personal liability following the ruling. But that potential increased exposure also raises several insurance implications for companies to consider while procuring and renewing directors and officers insurance coverage.

A New York federal court recently held that an insurance company was entitled to recoup legal fees paid under a directors and officers liability policy in defense of a criminal action against an ex-CEO who was convicted of bribery. On a motion for reconsideration, the court affirmed its earlier ruling that the CEO’s conduct fell within the policy’s “Dishonest and Willful Acts Exclusion,” reasoning that the criminal case had been finally adjudicated despite a pending appeal. Because there was no coverage, the insurer could seek repayment of all defense costs it had paid to date. Not only is the court’s recoupment decision potentially inconsistent with New York law, but it also raises thorny questions regarding just when a judgment is “final” for the purpose of triggering D&O policy exclusions.

Last week, Kim Kardashian settled with the SEC after the SEC announced charges against the social-media and reality TV star for promoting a crypto-currency token called EthereumMax, on her Instagram account, where she boasts more than 330 million followers, without disclosing that she received payment for the promotion. Kardashian agreed to pay $1.26 million in penalties, including the $250,000 EthereumMax paid her for promoting its crypto-tokens to potential investors. SEC Chair Gary Gensler stated that Kardashian’s case is “a reminder to celebrities and others that the law requires them to disclose to the public when and how much they are paid to promote investing in securities.”

A Delaware court recently granted summary judgment to a mortgage broker targeted in a federal government investigation for alleged False Claims Act violations, holding that the company’s directors and officers liability (“D&O”) insurer was required to indemnify more than $15 million in settlement costs with the U.S. Department of Justice. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, No. N20C-04-268 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2022). We previously reported on the policyholder’s earlier victory in this case, in which the court held that a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from federal authorities triggered the insurer’s obligation to pay defense costs under the D&O policy.

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently gave another reminder why cyber insurance should be part of any comprehensive insurance portfolio.  In Construction Financial Administration Services, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 19-0020 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022), the court rejected a policyholder’s attempt to find coverage under its professional liability insurance for a social engineering incident that defrauded over $1 million.

In what is an unfortunate sign of the times, Springpoint Senior Living, Inc. recently sued its insurers in New Jersey federal court claiming they abruptly stopped covering Springpoint’s defense costs after doing so for nearly a decade.  A copy of the complaint can be found here. Springpoint’s allegations are emblematic of a growing trend among insurers taking drastic measures to avoid coverage, which is no doubt in response to the tightening economic conditions and looming recession around the globe. 

Boston-based partner Geoffrey Fehling has been recognized for his extensive experience and insights into emerging issues affecting directors and officers liability and other specialty lines insurance coverage by being selected to Law360’s 2022 Editorial Advisory Board for Insurance Authority Specialty Lines. As a member of the board, he will provide counsel to the legal newswire on insurance coverage issues facing companies and their officers and directors to help shape Law360’s future coverage.

To read more about Law360’s Insurance Authority Specialty Lines ...

In T.D. Williamson, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., the Tenth Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s decision that an insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify its insured, a pipeline company, against a former director’s lawsuit. 21-5043, 2022 WL 1112530, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 2022). According to the appellate court, the policy’s “insured vs. insured” exclusion barred coverage. This exclusion is common in D&O policies. The exclusion generally eliminates coverage for claims by or on behalf of one insured against another insured. For instance, the exclusion may bar coverage for claims by a company against one of its executives or by former or current executives against other executives of the same company. There are various versions of the exclusion, but they usually contain exceptions, which provide for coverage in specific situations. These exceptions are frequently the subject of coverage disputes.

Policyholders must be mindful of expansive causation language in policy exclusions that could pose significant—and sometimes unforeseen—hurdles to obtaining coverage for D&O claims. In TriPacific Capital Advisors, LLC v. Federal Insurance Co., a California federal court recently ruled that a D&O insurer had no duty to defend an investment firm’s $8.5 million employment suit because coverage was barred by the policy’s broad contract exclusion, which applied not only to breach of contract claims but also any claims “arising from” contractual liability owed by the company.

The Delaware legislature recently passed an amendment to the statute governing Delaware corporations’ ability to indemnify directors and officers. That statute—8 Del. Law 145—provides that Delaware corporations “may” purchase “insurance” to insure liability of their directors, officers, employees, and agents “whether or not the corporation would have the power to indemnify such person against such liability.” The recent amendment clarifies that “insurance” includes captive insurance. It states: “For purposes of this subsection, insurance shall include any insurance provided directly or indirectly (including pursuant to any fronting or reinsurance arrangement) by or through a captive insurance company organized and licensed in compliance with the laws of any jurisdiction . . . .”

From event-driven litigation and event cancellations to securities claims and regulatory enforcement actions, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a number of directors and officers liability exposures extending far beyond business interruption losses. The first wave of COVID-19 securities suits, for example, focused on allegations that companies made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose in securities filings how they responded to the pandemic (in the case of several cruise lines) or stood to benefit from it (in the case of pharmaceutical companies). Most, but not all, of those suits were dismissed on early motions. In all cases, however, those companies and individuals would have benefited from robust D&O liability insurance coverage.

2022 has kicked off with several new whistleblower awards, as the SEC announced earlier this week that it had awarded more than $4 million to whistleblowers who provided information and assistance in two government actions—one for misconduct occurring overseas and a second where the whistleblower’s assistance directly led to the success of the covered action.

We have written over the past year about a string of pro-policyholder decisions from Delaware courts. One policyholder, however, recently had its claims dismissed based on application of Delaware law, based on one of 2020’s important D&O cases that limited coverage for appraisal actions initiated by stockholders pursuant to Title 8, Section 262 of the Delaware Code. In Stillwater Mining Co. v. National Union, the Delaware Superior Court explained that Stillwater had seized upon the Court’s 2019 opinion in Solera Holdings v. XL Specialty, which had held that a Section 262 appraisal action constituted a “securities claim” because it alleged a “violation” of state statutory or common law regulating securities. The policyholder alleged in its complaint that Delaware law governed the D&O policy, but when the Delaware Supreme Court reversed Solera, Stillwater “pivoted” to the view that Montana law, rather than Delaware law, governed the policy.

Policyholders have scored another victory in the Delaware Superior Court, this time on the issue of whether a “mergers and acquisition” endorsement required payment of a higher retention in two securities class actions. In August, we reported that, in CVR Refining, LP v. XL Specialty Insurance Co., No. N21C-01-260 EMD CCLD, 2021 WL 3523925 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 11, 2021), a Delaware Superior Court judge upheld a policyholder’s preferred forum in Delaware, denying five insurers’ motion to dismiss or stay the Delaware coverage action filed after the insurers had filed suit preemptively in Texas.

The Central District of California recently rejected an attempt by Federal Insurance Company, a Chubb company, to avoid its duty to defend its insureds in an $8.5 million lawsuit with a former employee.

TriPacific Capital Advisors, LLC acquired Directors and Officers (D&O) coverage from Federal and Employment Practices Liability (EPL) coverage from Travelers Insurance Company. While those policies were in effect, a former TriPacific employee sued the company and its president, Geoffrey Fearns, for a variety of employment-related causes of action concerning his termination and compensation. TriPacific and Fearns tendered notice to both insurers, seeking indemnification and defense costs. Both policies contained a duty to defend.  While Travelers agreed to defend under a reservation of rights, Federal denied coverage based on multiple grounds, including its policy’s “other insurance” provision, contending that the provision rendered its policy “excess” to the Travelers policy.  Federal also argued that TriPacific had not satisfied the D&O policy’s $150,000 self-insured retention and, thus, coverage had not been implicated, in any event. TriPacific maintained that neither the SIR nor the “other insurance” provision pertained to Federal’s duty to defend and brought suit to enforce the duty to defend.

Earlier this month, current and former Boeing Company directors agreed to a $237.5 million settlement to resolve claims that they ignored safety issues concerning Boeing’s 737 MAX aircraft. While the settlement, which came quickly on the heels of the Delaware Chancery Court’s September denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ranks as one of the largest derivative settlements of all time, the silver lining for the directors and officers named in the suit is that the entire settlement is to be funded by the company’s D&O insurers. The Boeing case is yet another example of the necessity for public companies to purchase sufficient D&O liability coverage, particularly “Side A” insurance coverage, to protect officers and directors implicated in derivative claims, securities class actions, enforcement actions, and similar claims. Because many states, including Delaware, prohibit companies from indemnifying officers and directors for payments made to the company in settlement of stockholder derivative claims or other suits brought on behalf of the company, securing Side A coverage to protect individuals for non-indemnified loss is essential.

Last month, the US District Court for the District of Connecticut granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in the case of Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 3:19cv839 (JBA), finding that there was no coverage under a directors & officers policy for defense costs associated with responding to a government subpoena. Last week, in line with our commentary, which highlighted several critical flaws in the court’s initial ruling, the court reversed itself and granted reconsideration, finding that there actually is coverage.

While policyholders have experienced a wide range of conflicting rulings related to COVID-19 business interruption losses, a recent Northern District of Illinois decision shows that the pandemic continues to present a range of exposures beyond business interruption losses, including for claims under directors and officers liability policies. In Federal Insurance Co. v. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, Inc., No. 20 C 6797 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2021), the court rejected the insurer’s broad reading of a professional services exclusion, contract exclusion, and the insurability of alleged restitution to deny coverage under a D&O policy for losses arising from a cancelled trade show.

Last year, we wrote about the UK’s National Security and Investment Bill, which was pending approval at the end of 2020. A few months into the New Year, the bill received Royal Assent, making it the “biggest shake-up of UK’s investment screening regime in 20 years.”

The NSI Act is now scheduled to take effect on January 4, 2022. However, businesses should be aware of the Act’s requirements now because it has a retroactive effect, where the government can “call in” transactions that have closed since November 12, 2020 for in-depth review if it believes a transaction gives ...

While total False Claims Act recoveries decreased in 2020, FCA litigation and investigations are expected to continue to rise under the Biden administration, driven in part by the DOJ opening 250 new FCA investigations and actions in 2020, which is the highest number of new matters since 1994. As recent decisions show, the good news is that companies incurring legal fees defending against government investigations or negotiating settlements with regulators to resolve FCA claims may be able to look to D&O coverage to mitigate those losses. One such company recently prevailed in its $10 million claim against an excess D&O insurer following the insurer’s improper refused to contribute its policy limits to an FCA settlement with the DOJ. The Illinois federal court decision, Astellas US Holdings, Inc. v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co., No. 17-cv-08220 (E.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2021), which focuses on whether $50 million of Astellas’s settlement payment to the DOJ was covered “Loss” under the D&O policy, provides useful guidance for companies facing potential FCA exposures.

A federal court in New York denied an insurer’s attempt to dismiss a coverage dispute, rejecting the insurer’s contention that the individual insured directors were “necessary” parties. The insurer argued that, because the outcome of the coverage suit could jeopardize the directors’ indemnity and thereby implicate the D&O policy’s Side A coverage for non-indemnified losses, the directors had an indispensable interest in the litigation. The court disagreed.

The coverage dispute in LRN Corp. v. Markel Insurance Co., 1:20-cv-08431 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2021), arose from an underlying lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court brought by an LRN shareholder against the company and three of its directors. The plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit alleged that a self-tender offer by LRN to acquire shares of LRN’s common stock was coercive and part of a scheme that was in part orchestrated by the LRN’s directors. LRN, though dismissed from the underlying lawsuit, continued to pay legal fees for the named directors.

The Superior Court of Delaware held that a directors and officers liability insurer must advance defense costs to a mortgage broker targeted in a federal government investigation of alleged False Claims Act violations. In Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, No. N20C-04-268 MMJ CCLD (Del. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2021), Guaranteed Rate received a Civil Investigative Demand from federal authorities in June 2019 regarding the company’s underwriting and issuance of federally-insured mortgage loans. Eleven days later, Guaranteed Rate provided notice of the CID under a private company management liability policy issued by ACE American Insurance Company.

A Delaware Superior Court judge recently upheld a policyholder’s preferred forum in Delaware, denying five insurers’ motion to dismiss or stay the Delaware coverage action filed after the insurers had filed suit preemptively in Texas. The court in CVR Refining, LP v. XL Specialty Insurance Co., No. N21C-01-260 EMD CCLD, 2021 WL 3523925 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 11, 2021), held that, although the insurers (XL Specialty, Twin City Fire, Allianz Global Risks US, Argonaut, and Allied World) filed suit three days before the insureds, both suits were filed “contemporaneously” under Delaware law and that the insurers had failed to demonstrate any “overwhelming hardship” necessary to dismiss the case. The court also found that, since the insurers were all licensed to do business in Delaware, they could not show overwhelming hardship. Thus, the policyholder’s preference to litigate its insurance claims in Delaware must stand.

A company faces two class action lawsuits—filed by different plaintiffs, complaining of different allegedly wrongful conduct, asserting different causes of action subject to different burdens of proof, and seeking different relief based on different time periods for the alleged harm. Those facts suggest the suits are not “fundamentally identical,” but that is what a Delaware Superior Court recently concluded in barring coverage for a policyholder seeking to recover for a suit the court deemed “related” to an earlier lawsuit first made outside the policy’s coverage period. First Solar Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. N20C-10-156 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. June 23, 2021). The decision, which is not on all fours with some of the authority upon which it relies, underscores the inherent unpredictability of “related” claim disputes and need for careful analysis of the policy language against the factual and legal bases of the underlying claims.

From business interruption to biometric privacy, the first half of 2021 has already seen its fair share of significant insurance rulings. Law360 recently interviewed Hunton insurance counsel Geoffrey Fehling for an article analyzing the biggest insurance coverage cases and how they have impacted the legal landscape for policyholders and insurers.

Hunton Andrews Kurth Counsel Geoffrey Fehling was quoted on June 4 in a Law360 article titled “FCPA’s High Costs May Cause Tightening In D&O Market.” The article analyzed heightened FCPA enforcement risks faced by corporate policyholders, which could lead to an even harder market for directors and officers insurance coverage for those exposures, according to Fehling and other legal experts interviewed for the article. Citing recent government-led investigations into FCPA violations, the article discussed, among other things, three key expenses large corporate policyholders must consider when being investigated for a FCPA violation: costs to investigate the alleged violation, costs for any liability for a violation supported by evidence, and costs to shareholders for potential securities or other follow-on litigation.

Hunton Andrews Kurth’s insurance coverage team recently published a client alert discussing a D&O coverage dispute arising from a contractual liability exclusion.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a D&O liability insurer could not rely on ambiguous endorsements as a basis to deny coverage for claims brought by investors against its insured company and its CEO. Reversing the Eastern District of Missouri, the appellate court in Verto Medical Solutions LLC, et al. v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Co., No.19-3511 (8th Cir.), found the policy ambiguous as to whether a contractual liability exclusion had been deleted by endorsement and thus, the insurer must provide coverage for the underlying claims.

Hunton insurance coverage attorney Geoffrey Fehling recently presented on new developments in the area of D&O liability insurance at the Director and Officer Liability Committee’s spring meeting, which concluded a week of programming, networking, and other events at the 2021 ABA Business Law Virtual Spring Meeting. The mission of the Committee on Director and Officer Liability is to monitor developments concerning the liability of directors and officers of for-profit corporations, including court decisions, government actions, D&O insurance, and indemnification and ...

Hunton Andrews Kurth's insurance coverage team recently published a client alert discussing a D&O coverage dispute arising from a credit union’s post-acquisition fraud claims.

Everest National Insurance Company has filed a lawsuit denying any obligation to cover a post-acquisition lawsuit by a credit union alleging fraud against two banks and their executives. The seller paid additional premium for an extended reporting period to report claims based on pre-acquisition wrongful conduct, but the insurer denied coverage on the ground that any claims asserted by the buyer are excluded under the D&O policy’s “insured vs. insured” exclusion. The decision underscores the importance of not only ensuring continuity of D&O coverage before and after a transaction but also evaluating all possible claim scenarios arising out of a deal to ensure that all stakeholders are adequately protected.

In a recent post on the Nickel Report (“Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance: What are the Risks, Really?”), our colleagues provide a thoughtful discussion of various risks, trending issues, and emerging concerns arising from environmental, social, and corporate governance (“ESG”). One key takeaway is that ESG-related activity at the federal government is just getting started and that agencies have already begun devoting substantial resources to ESG issues, like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently-announced Climate and ESG task force to “develop initiatives to proactively identify ESG-related misconduct.”

In another pro-policyholder ruling in Delaware, a Delaware Superior Court judge has denied a group of insurers’ application for certification of interlocutory appeal in the long-running D&O dispute, Verizon Communications Inc. et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al., C.A. No. N18C-08-086 EMD CCLD (Del. Super. March 16, 2021). The court’s most recent decision arises out of a February 23 ruling that Verizon could recover $24 million in legal fees incurred in defense of a fraudulent transfer lawsuit brought by a bankruptcy trustee. When the insurers’ sought to appeal this interlocutory decision, the court refused, concluding that the benefits of an immediate appeal, if any, do not outweigh the probable costs. The decision will permit the orderly resolution of what the court deemed to be “standard contract law principles,” which the insurers had failed to demonstrate negated coverage.

On March 3, 2021, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a landmark decision holding that Delaware law should be applied in disputes over directors and officers liability (“D&O”) insurance policies sold to companies incorporated in Delaware. RSUI Indem. Co. v. Murdock, et al. No. 154, 2020, C.A. No. N16C-01-104 CCLD (Del. Mar. 3, 2021). The court addressed this and other key issues in the long-running dispute over D&O insurance purchased by Dole Food Company, specifically addressing issues raised by Dole’s eighth-layer excess insurer, RSUI, which provided $10 million coverage excess of $75 million.

The court decided multiple important issues, finding that liability for alleged fraud is insurable under Delaware public policy, RSUI’s Profit/Fraud Exclusion did not bar coverage because there had been no “final adjudication” of fraud, and the “larger sums rule” governed allocation issues. However, among these important rulings, the most significant may be the Supreme Court’s ruling that Delaware governs the interpretation of D&O insurance issued to a company incorporated in Delaware.  The court specifically rejected the insurer’s arguments that California law (which might preclude coverage) should apply under a policy that was purchased and issued in California to a Delaware corporation headquartered in California.

From event-driven litigation to government investigations, 2020 has brought a variety of directors’ and officers’ liability exposures arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Looking toward the new year, we expect that robust D&O insurance programs will remain of critical importance for companies and their officers and directors in 2021 and beyond.

The Nasdaq stock market has filed a proposal with the US Securities and Exchange Commission requesting permission to enforce new rules aimed at advancing diversity among board members of Nasdaq-listed companies and increasing disclosure of diversity statistics. Investors and shareholders have devoted significant attention (and several lawsuits) in recent years to addressing environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues at the board level. Nasdaq’s proposal would bring diversity to the forefront of the boardroom, as well as present new compliance obligations and possible D&O exposures to companies subject to the proposed listing requirements.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has levied $125,000 in civil penalties on Cheesecake Factory as part of a settlement to resolve the agency’s allegations that the company made materially misleading statements to investors about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its business. While this is the first such case reported by the SEC, it is only one in a string of recent third-party liabilities companies have faced that implicate directors’ and officers’ liability insurance coverage.

In March, we reported on the initial filing of several securities class action suits arising from the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). For example, at the start of the pandemic, shareholders of Norwegian Cruise Lines Holdings, Ltd. filed a class action alleging that the company and certain officers violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit alleged that the cruise line made false and misleading statements about COVID-19 in order to persuade consumers to purchase cruises. This allegedly caused the share prices to be cut in half.

As reported in a recent Hunton Andrews Kurth client alert, Mitigating FCRA Risks in the COVID-19 World (Oct. 23, 2020), consumer litigation claims related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) doubled in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. After a slight decrease in FCRA filings due to court closures and other COVID-19 restrictions, claims will likely resume their previous upward trajectory. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has already seen an uptick in consumer complaints, many of which mention COVID-19 specific keywords.

Walmart announced this week that it is testing a pilot program in North Carolina for the delivery of groceries and household items using automated drones, joining other retailers looking to beef up their drone delivery business.  In a related development, last week the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) designated Amazon Prime Air as an “air carrier,” a key step in the process of Amazon’s quest to expand into the delivery-by-drone arena.  Amazon joins Wing, the Alphabet Inc. subsidiary, and UPS as companies that have obtained FAA approval to operate unmanned aircraft systems (i.e., drones) under the federal regulations.  Given the rapid rise of commercial drone use, businesses have understandably grown concerned that their drone technologies will expose them to a new set of risks, including damage to the drone itself, as well as third-party claims following property or physical injury caused by a company-operated or company-owned drone (and other third-party claims like invasion of privacy).  In light of these risks, it is key that businesses using drones obtain the insurance coverage necessary to protect themselves against such risks, and that they explore all coverage options should a drone-related loss arise in order to maximize their chances of insurance recovery.

As has been widely reported, insurance companies have been inundated with claims arising from the novel coronavirus and are locked into contentious coverage battles regarding the scope of coverage afforded for such claims under various policy forms. Courts have begun issuing decisions both for and against policyholders attempting recovery for COVID-19-related losses, and the legal battles resolving those questions will likely take months or even years to play out.

Trading on New Zealand’s stock exchange was disrupted last week, following four straight days of repeated cyberattacks that resulted in outages affecting debt, equities, and derivatives markets.  The DDoS attack, which is said to have originated offshore, is allegedly part of a global extortion scheme that has also targeted companies like PayPal and Venmo.  With this type of cyberattack becoming only more common and sophisticated, it is vital for policyholders to focus on the host of available insurance coverage options to protect against and maximize their insurance recovery following losses from a cyberattack.

A New York appeals court recently granted partial summary judgment in favor of the insureds, finding that excess directors and officers insurers, Westchester Fire Insurance Co., Aspen American Insurance Co. and RSUI Indemnity Co., must advance the defense costs for former executives of the insured entity. The decision is the most recent victory for policyholders in connection with D&O insurance claims asserted in the wake of alleged securities violations and accounting fraud at related real estate investment firms, which have resulted in millions of insurance recoveries for the company and its officers and directors (as previously reported here and here).

Much of the commentary on insurance issues arising from the COVID-19 crisis, including multiple posts on this blog, understandably has focused on recovery under first-party property policies providing business interruption coverage for losses incurred due to office closures, government orders, extra expenses, and other direct costs experienced by employers. There is a much broader range of possible claim scenarios arising from COVID-19 that may go to other kinds of coverages, however; most notably directors and officers liability, management liability, fiduciary ...

In a prior post, we predicted that novel coronavirus (COVID-19) risks could implicate D&O and similar management liability coverage arising from so-called “event-driven” litigation, a new kind of securities class action that relies on specific adverse events, rather than fraudulent financial disclosures or accounting issues, as the catalyst for targeting both companies and their directors and officers for the resulting drop in stock price. It appears that ship has sailed, so to speak, as Kevin LaCroix at D&O Diary reported over the weekend that a plaintiff shareholder had filed a securities class action lawsuit against Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. alleging that the company employed misleading sales tactics related to the outbreak.

The CDC reports that, as of the end of last week, the coronavirus disease had spread through China and to 31 other countries and territories, including the United States, which has now seen its first two related deaths. The public health response in the United States has been swift and includes travel advisories, heightened airport screening, and repatriation and quarantine of potentially infected individuals. Outside the United States, countries like China, Italy, and South Korea have implemented more severe measures to combat the disease. From smart phones to automobiles, coronavirus has major short- and long-term implications for public and private companies facing potentially significant supply chain disruptions, store and office closures, and other logistical issues. These business losses, however, may be covered by insurance. Below are several key insurance considerations for policyholders to contemplate when evaluating the availability of insurance coverage for coronavirus-driven losses.

Claims stemming from the manufacture, sale, distribution and prescription of opioid products continue to proliferate, fueling opioid liability as an historic mass tort.  Claims asserted in lawsuits brought by state and local governments include allegations of negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, violation of consumer protection statutes, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, antitrust violations, and claims for medical monitoring and injunctive relief, among others.  In December 2017, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of approximately 200 then pending opioid related cases into a multidistrict litigation before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, styled In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (the “MDL”). It was recently reported that two pharmacy chains involved in the opioid MDL are suing 500 physicians alleging it is the doctors, not the pharmacists, who are to blame for faulty prescriptions.  At the end of last week, the judge handling the MDL allowed claims against opioid companies by union benefit plans to proceed, concluding that the plans’ claims of harm differed from the injuries to health and safety suffered by the public at large.

Hunton Insurance partners Syed Ahmad and Michael Levine were interviewed by Law360 for its year-end article discussing the top insurance rulings in 2019, for their insights on two of the year’s biggest insurance decisions.

Insurance companies frequently raise the so-called “dishonesty” exclusion that is typically found in most professional liability and directors and officers insurance policies.  Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit took a substantial step toward curtailing that practice.  In a coverage dispute with eight-figure implications, the appellate court found in favor of the policyholder and ruled that publishing false statements does not equate to dishonesty and thus is not sufficient to support application of a dishonesty exclusion.

On September 18, 2019, a Texas federal court vacated its prior ruling and entered summary judgment for the insured, finding that after a hacker impersonating the customer convinced the insured to wire $1 million out of the customer’s account, the insurer had a duty to defend its insured against claims by its customer because the potential for coverage existed.  See Quality Sausage Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-111 (S.D.TX) (Dkt. No. 110).  The prior order was based on disputed extrinsic evidence, which the court considered in deciding the duty to defend, even though Texas’ narrow exception to the “eight corners” rule is limited to only undisputed extrinsic evidence.

Real estate investment trust VERIET, Inc. (formerly known as American Realty Capital Properties) announced this week that it agreed to a $765.5 million settlement to resolve shareholder class action and related lawsuits arising from a host of alleged securities violations and accounting fraud at ARCP since the company went public in 2011. Defendants in the class action settlement have agreed to pay more than $1 billion in compensation, including millions from ARCP’s former manager and principals, chief financial officer, and former auditor.

The Seventh Circuit recently withdrew its controversial opinion that broadly interpreted an exclusion in Emmis Communications Corporation’s D&O policy, thereby barring coverage for losses in connection with claims of circumstances “as reported” under Emmis’ other insurance policy. The reversal, while very rare, was the correct result that alleviated concerns about the chilling effect the court’s broad reading of the exclusion may have on policyholders’ decisions to provide notice under all potentially applicable insurance policies.

On August 19, 2019, a Texas appellate court reversed a trial court’s summary judgment in favor of an excess carrier, and ruled as a matter of law that an arbitration award in favor of a former officer was covered under the EPL component of a management liability policy.  In doing so, the court rejected the carrier’s reliance on an Insured v. Insured exclusion.  The court also looked to the policy’s definition of “Interrelated Wrongful Acts,” a concept typically relied on by carriers to deny or limit coverage, to sweep a variety of allegations within the scope of the policy’s EPL insuring agreement and an exception to the Insured v. Insured exclusion.

In a recent article in the ABA Business Law Section publication Business Law Today, Hunton insurance recovery lawyers Syed Ahmad and Geoffrey Fehling discuss several important D&O insurance coverage issues to consider in M&A transactions. In the article, the authors discuss the intersection of M&A and insurance and how mergers, acquisitions, and other deals can impact the potential risks and protections afforded by D&O and other insurance policies . A copy of the article can be found here.

In an article appearing in Law360 on August 8, 2019, Hunton insurance partner, Syed Ahmad, provided insight into three recent significant D&O insurance decisions.

Equifax Inc. recently announced that it has agreed to pay up to $700 million to settle numerous government investigations and consumer claims arising out of a 2017 breach that exposed Social Security numbers, addresses and other personal data belonging to over 148 million individuals. Following the breach, Equifax faced investigations from the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, all 50 state attorneys general and consumers prosecuting nationwide multidistrict litigation. As part of the deal, Equifax will contribute approximately $300 million to compensate consumers, with the potential to increase to $425 million depending on the number of claims filed. Equifax also agreed to pay $175 million to state governments, plus another $100 million in civil penalties to the CFPB.

On June 17, 2019, the First Circuit held that an insurer’s duty to defend was triggered because the underlying complaint set forth claims that required a showing of intent as well as claims that sought recovery for conduct that “fits comfortably within the definition of an ‘accident.’” In Zurich American Ins. Co v. Electricity Maine, LLC, Zurich sought declaratory judgment that, under a D&O policy, it had no duty to defend the insured, Electricity Maine, an electrical utility company being sued in the underlying class action. Zurich argued it had no duty to defend because the underlying complaint failed to allege that Electricity Maine engaged in conduct that qualified as an “occurrence” or that caused “bodily injury” under the terms of the policy. The First Circuit disagreed.

The May 13, 2019 decision by the US Supreme Court in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper has brought antitrust concerns, and the insurance issues they raise, front and center.  While Apple, Inc., of course, is a publicly traded company, private companies can also fall victim to these issues and need to look to coverage for protection.  For a discussion of these issues, we repost the article by Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP partner Lorie Masters, insurance broker Marsh and others, which analyzes these often complex issues.  “Optimizing Antitrust Coverage in Private Company D&O Policies,” published by ...

The Delaware Superior Court ruled that insurers could not rely on Written Consent and Cooperation clauses in directors and officers liability insurance policies to avoid coverage for settlements by Dole Food Company, Inc. (“Dole”) in shareholder disputes involving fraud in a go-private transaction.

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP partner Lorie Masters, partnering with insurance broker Marsh and others, analyzed the often complex issues raised by the insurance coverage actions posed by actions alleging violations of antitrust laws.  “Optimizing Antitrust Coverage in Private Company D&O Policies,” published by Marsh in Insights.  Investigations invoking antitrust laws raise the prospect of both civil and criminal liabilities. While most of these investigations are settled or resolved without findings of liability, the defense costs can be staggering.  Policyholders ...

In an article appearing in Electric Light & Power, Hunton insurance recovery lawyers, Lawrence Bracken, Sergio Oehninger and Alexander Russo discuss the insurability of losses resulting from the recent wildfires in California.  Many affected by the tragedy have tried to shift responsibility to utility and power companies, which also may face subrogation claims from insurers that paid property and business owners for first-party losses.  In addition, liability insurance programs may help defray costs imposed upon those believed to be at fault, including costs resulting from ...

In a recent Client Alert, Hunton insurance lawyers Mike Levine, Sergio Oehninger and Josh Paster discuss the impact of the Second Circuit’s recent opinion in Patriarch Partners, LLC v. Axis Insurance Co., where the Court confirmed that a warranty letter accompanying the policyholder’s insurance application barred coverage for a lengthy SEC investigation. The decision underscores the importance of understanding how a policy’s language and definitions impact the scope of information that policyholders must consider when representing facts and circumstances in ...

In a victory for policyholders, a New York trial court rejected insurers’ summary judgment arguments, ruling that an insurer must establish a common “fact, circumstance, situation, transaction or event” underlying an investigation before it can rely on a prior and pending litigation and investigation (“PPLI”) exclusion based on that earlier investigation. The court further ruled that the insurer cannot base its coverage denial on a common “fact, circumstance, situation, transaction or event” learned during the investigation.

The Northern District of Illinois in Astellas US Holding, Inc. v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Co., 2018 WL 2431969, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2018) held that a U.S. Department of Justice subpoena demanding documents relating to a government investigation constitutes a “Claim.”

Drug-maker Pfizer and one of its excess insurers, North River, are in the middle of a contentious dispute regarding the proper forum for their coverage dispute over directors and officers liability insurance following both parties’ race to the courthouse to file competing lawsuits in 2015. Pfizer argues that its own preferred forum of Delaware (where Pfizer is incorporated) is correct, while North River counters that New York (where Pfizer’s headquarters and its broker are located) is the proper forum. The dispute, which involves competing motions in Delaware and New York courts, highlights the importance of both the timing and location of forum selection in litigating insurance coverage disputes.

May 25, 2018 should be a day circled on many company calendars. On that day, the European Union’s long-awaited Global Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) will go into effect.  It is crucial for U.S. companies to prepare for the GDPR, as they, too, will be required to comply with a new set of data privacy rules if they are handling data from EU-based customers, suppliers, or affiliates. As long as you collect personal or behavioral data from someone in the EU, you must comply with the GDPR.

Hunton insurance recovery partner, Syed Ahmad, was recently asked to comment by Law360 on a Delaware Superior Court decision finding that state law does not preclude D&O insurance coverage for fraud-based claims against two Dole Food Co. executives, who are seeking to force several excess insurers to help pay for $222 million in settlements they reached to resolve stockholder suits accusing them of driving down Dole’s price before a 2013 take-private deal.  According the Ahmad, the ruling is likely to carry strong precedential effect due to the solid reasoning of the court’s decision, which is premised on the Delaware Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Whalen v. On-Deck Inc., which upheld the availability of coverage for punitive damages under Delaware law.