Applying Oklahoma law, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has held that no coverage is available for a lawsuit involving an equity holder in an investment agreement because the action did not involve a “Wrongful Act” in an individual’s capacity as “an Insured Person.”  Turner v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 2020 WL 3547954 (W.D. Okla. June 10, 2020).  The court further held that the insured did not satisfy his burden of proving that his legal costs were “Defense Expenses” even though he was nominally a “defendant” in the suit.

Continue Reading No Coverage for Affirmative Lawsuit Challenging Distribution of Proceeds From Sale of Investment Assets

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, applying Oklahoma law, has held that the insured bears the burden of demonstrating that an exception to an otherwise applicable exclusion applies to restore coverage.  World Water Works Holdings, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 2019 WL 2576560 (N.D. Ill. June 24, 2019).

Continue Reading Insured Bears Burden of Establishing that Exception to Insured Versus Insured Exclusion Applies

The United States District Court for the District of Oklahoma has held that a lawsuit filed by a company against its former president did not implicate its policy’s Employment Practices Liability coverage because the lawsuit was not filed by or on behalf of an employee, as required by the policy.  Statton v. Allied World Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 WL 454563 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 17, 2018).  Furthermore, because the former officer failed to tender the Claim within fifteen days of the date on which it was first made, as required by the coverage section’s “Right to Tender Defense” provision, the individual was not entitled to a defense.

Continue Reading Lawsuit Filed by Company Against Former Officer Does Not Trigger Employment Practices Liability Coverage

The Tenth Circuit, applying Oklahoma law, has held that an insured’s notice of a temporary restraining order did not constitute sufficient notice of a subsequent lawsuit under a professional liability insurance policy.  Thames v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2016 WL 7228800 (10th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016).

Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Finds Notice of Temporary Restraining Order Against Insured Did Not Constitute Proper Notice of Subsequent Lawsuit

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has held that, under Oklahoma law, a policy’s “no action” clause does not apply to an insured’s breach of contract claims against its insurer premised on a breach of the duty to defend the underlying claim.  Wilbanks Securities Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144761 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 19, 2016).  In so holding, the court explained that the “no action” clause “is a provision that applies to the claims of third parties” and specifically those claims “seeking recovery of settlements or judgments and not declaratory judgments regarding the duty to defend.”

Continue Reading No Action Clause Does Not Bar Insured’s Duty to Defend/Bad Faith Claims Against Insurer

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, applying Oklahoma law, has held that a litigation hold letter requesting that an insured preserve documents did not constitute a “claim” as defined by the excess liability policies at issueColony Ins. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 2016 WL 5416517 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 28, 2016).

Continue Reading Litigation Hold Letter Was Not a Claim