Tag: E&O

Beware of Good Intentions: Insurer Cannot Escape Duty to Defend by Interpleading Policy Limits That Were Not Subject to Competing Claims

On October 6, 2015, the United States District Court, Northern District of California held that an insurer breached its duty to defend by interpleading remaining policy limits and ceasing its defense of its insured.  Doublevision Entertainment, LLC v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, N.D. Cal., No. C 14-02848 WHA. Despite language in the policy stating that … Continue Reading

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

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 alleged mislabeling of certain herbal supplements. After genetically testing store-brand product samples of Ginko Biloba, St. John’s Wort, Ginseng, Garlic, Echinacea, and Saw Palmetto, the NYAG alleged that the supplements were unrecognizable or contained substances other than those disclosed on their packaging labels. Class action lawsuits already have been filed, and the NYAG directed the targeted retailers to provide it with detailed information regarding the manufacturing, testing, and procurement of the herbal supplements, and announced that it may bring charges for alleged deceptive practices in advertising.… Continue Reading

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