Tag: D&O, E&O, Professional Liability

Insurance Coverage for Statutory Damages Under Professional Liability Policies

Increasingly, companies are being named as defendants in putative class actions, like those brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Telephone Consumer Protection Act, involving violations of statutes that contain provisions mandating certain damages or ranges of damages. One question raised is whether “statutory damages” are uncovered “fines” or “penalties,” or whether they are … Continue Reading

New York Court Narrowly Construes “Final Judgment” Language In Fraud Exclusion: Does Your D&O Policy Protect You Through An Appeal?

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department’s June 23 decision in Dupree v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., Case No. 653412-11, highlights the importance of negotiating favorable language in a fraud exclusion, a standard feature in D&O liability insurance policies that precludes coverage for claims arising out of fraudulent or criminal acts committed by the … Continue Reading

Pursuing Insurance Coverage for Alleged Mislabeling of Dietary and Herbal Supplement Products

This post was written by Evan Knott, Robert Deegan, Brian Himmel and Traci Rea.
Businesses in the dietary supplement supply chain are taking cover after the New York Attorney General (NYAG) ordered four major retailers to cease and desist the sale and …

Lessons Learned: Report All Potential D&O Liability Insurance Claims Without Delay

The District Court of Massachusetts’ January 6, 2015 opinion in Biochemics, Inc. v. Axis Reinsurance Co., 2015 WL 71493 (D. Mass. Jan. 6, 2015), reaffirms the importance of providing timely notice of all D&O liability claims – including subpoenas. In Biochemics, the policyholder sought coverage from its primary D&O liability insurer, Axis, for defense costs it incurred in an SEC enforcement action commenced during the AXIS policy period. Judge Rya Zobel held that Biochemics had no coverage for the SEC enforcement action because it related back to two deposition subpoenas that the SEC served on Biochemics before the AXIS policy incepted. Because those deposition subpoenas indicated on their face that the SEC had commenced a formal investigation against Biochemics, each subpoena was a “Claim” that should have been reported to Biochemics’ prior D&O carrier. Because the Claim was “first made” before the AXIS policy period, Judge Zobel granted AXIS’ motion for summary judgment and found that AXIS owed Biochemics no coverage under its policy.… Continue Reading

On the Coattails of United States v. Trek Leather, Make Sure You Have Suitable D&O Coverage

This post was written by Andy Moss and Stephen Winter.
Corporate directors and officers have a long list of things that can keep them up at night. Personal liability for civil fines and penalties arising out of negligence or even gross negligence comm…

Hackers Don’t Care About Your Insurance

This post was written by Brian Himmel, Andy Moss, David Weiss and Cristina Shea.
A recent study reports that the median amount of time between a breach of a company’s computer network and the discovery of the incident is 229 days. But some …

Catch Me If You Can: Fake Doctor’s Application Voids Coverage For Himself But Not For Innocent Co-Insureds

This post was written by Kevin B. Dreher and Natalie C. Metropulos.
In life, sometimes even the law imitates art. As if copied straight out of the script of “Catch Me If You Can,” the U.S. District Court in South Carolina issued a ruling on…