In a win for an insurer represented by Wiley Rein, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland has held that an intra-corporate dispute between shareholders was not covered under an EPL insuring agreement because the underlying demand letter and complaint did not state a claim “for” an Employment Practices Wrongful Act, and it was not covered under a D&O insuring agreement because the claimant owned 10% or more of the outstanding shares of the insured company at the time the claim was made.  Madison Mechanical, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6035690 (D. Md. Nov. 14, 2019).

Continue Reading

The Supreme Court of Vermont has held there is no coverage for breach of contract and intentional torts under an errors and omissions (E&O) liability policy, where all counts of the complaint rested on allegations that the insured used misrepresentations and falsehoods to undermine a competitor, which did not fall within the definition of “professional services” under the policy.  Integrated Tech., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty, 2019 WL 3759175 (Vt. Aug. 9, 2019).

Continue Reading

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, applying Florida law, held that a directors and officers liability insurance policy did not provide coverage for a claim asserted by a receiver seeking the return of bonus and other compensation amounts paid to a former director and officer of the company because (1) the policy’s profit exclusion applied; and (2) the claw back claim did not arise out of a “Wrongful Act.”  Desai v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3068398 (M.D. Fla. July 12, 2019).

Continue Reading

The United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has held that there is no coverage for a False Claims Act settlement where the insured company’s alleged wrongful acts took place outside the policy period and were independently barred from coverage by a contract exclusion, prior acts exclusion and regulatory exclusion. Office Depot Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co. No. 2:15-cv-02416 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2019).

Continue Reading

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, has held that a securities exclusion in a private company directors and officers insurance policy broadly barred coverage for all claims in an underlying lawsuit brought by former shareholders of an insured company arising out of the sale of their shares.  Colorado Boxed Beef Co., Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., No. 19-10326, 2019 WL 2479321 (11th Cir. June 13, 2019).

Continue Reading

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, applying South Carolina law, has denied a professional liability insurer’s motion to dismiss, holding that the insured’s alleged conduct could fall within the policy’s definition of “Wrongful Act,” thus giving rise to a duty to defend.  Harriman v. Associated Indus. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1670801 (D.S.C. Apr. 17, 2019).

Continue Reading

Applying California law, a federal district court has held that an insurer was not obligated to cover a labor union’s defense costs and damages in a lawsuit brought by a former employee because the alleged wage and hour violations were not “wrongful employment practices” or “wrongful acts” under the policy.  United Farm Workers of Am. v. Hudson Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1517568 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2019).  The court also held that material misrepresentations in the labor union’s application for insurance voided the policy.

Continue Reading

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, applying California law, has held that no coverage is available for a demand for payment in excess of agreed purchase orders based on an exclusion barring coverage for loss “as a result of” a claim “for any actual or alleged obligation under . . . any oral or written contract or agreement.”  Cross Check Servs., LLC v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1429336 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019).

Continue Reading