Featured Posts

$140 million SEC Disgorgement Payment Not a “Penalty” and Insurable Under New York Law
$140 million SEC Disgorgement Payment Not a “Penalty” and Insurable Under New York Law

The New York Court of Appeals has held that a $140 million disgorgement payment in an SEC settlement is not a non-covered “penalty” under a professional liability policy.  According to the court, the payment had compensatory purposes and was measured by an injured party’s losses and third-party gains.  J.P. Morgan Secs. Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 2021 WL 5492781 (N.Y. Nov. 23, 2021).

Subscribe to receive the latest updates from Wiley Executive Summary

Invasion of Privacy Exclusion Bars D&O Coverage for BIPA Suit But EPL Coverage Potentially Applies
Invasion of Privacy Exclusion Bars D&O Coverage for BIPA Suit But EPL Coverage Potentially Applies
D&O Policy’s Professional Services Exclusion and Contract Exclusion Do Not Bar Coverage For Claims Arising from Trade Show Cancellation
D&O Policy’s Professional Services Exclusion and Contract Exclusion Do Not Bar Coverage For Claims Arising from Trade Show Cancellation
Delaware Federal Court Clarifies No Coverage Available for Director and Officer Sued in Capacity as Controlling Stockholder
Delaware Federal Court Clarifies No Coverage Available for Director and Officer Sued in Capacity as Controlling Stockholder
Insured-Versus-Insured Exclusion Bars Coverage for Underlying Lawsuit Brought by Both Insured and Non-Insured Plaintiffs
Insured-Versus-Insured Exclusion Bars Coverage for Underlying Lawsuit Brought by Both Insured and Non-Insured Plaintiffs
Sixth Circuit: No Coverage for Defense Costs Resulting from Qui Tam Action
Sixth Circuit: No Coverage for Defense Costs Resulting from Qui Tam Action
E&O Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Dispute Limited to Recovery of Fees
E&O Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Dispute Limited to Recovery of Fees
Email Expressing Intention to Discuss Settlement Constitutes “Claim”  
Email Expressing Intention to Discuss Settlement Constitutes “Claim”  
Coverage for Negligence Claim Against Law Firm Arising from Wire Fraud Barred by Professional Liability Policy’s “Theft Exclusion”
Coverage for Negligence Claim Against Law Firm Arising from Wire Fraud Barred by Professional Liability Policy’s “Theft Exclusion”
Insurer May Rescind Policy and Recoup Defense Costs Based on Insured’s Failure to Disclose Known Potential Claim
Insurer May Rescind Policy and Recoup Defense Costs Based on Insured’s Failure to Disclose Known Potential Claim
Wiley Executive Summary

Sign up for updates

By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy, Terms & Conditions, and Cookies Policy.