In American Cas. Co. of Reading, P.A., v. Morris Gelb, 11 N.Y.S.3d 39 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) (No. ), the individual insureds, former directors and officers of Lyondell Chemical Company, sought coverage for their defense of an adversary proceeding brought by the creditors committee in Lyondell’s bankruptcy proceeding.  While the primary insurer accepted the duty to defend the individual insureds and provided a defense until the exhaustion of its policy limit, the excess insurers denied any duty to defend and filed a declaratory judgment action.  On cross motions for summary judgment, the excess insurers argued that the adversary proceeding (commenced in 2009) and a prior merger proceeding (commenced in 2007) were a related, single claim that fell within an earlier 2006-2007 policy period.  Because the 2006-2007 policy contained a version of the Insured v. Insured Exclusion that had not yet been amended to carve-back coverage for bankruptcy actions, the excess insurers argued that they had no duty to defend the individual insureds in the adversary proceeding.  Rejecting each of these coverage defenses, the court denied the excess insurers’ motion for summary judgment and granted the individual insureds’ motion.  The court held that while both proceedings arose out of the Lyondell merger, each involved different parties, difference causes of action, and different allegations, and were thus, unrelated.  Specifically, the earlier merger proceeding was premised on allegation that the price per share set by the individual insureds was too low, while the later adversary proceeding was premised on allegations that the price was too high and supported by unsustainable revenue projections and excessive leverage to finance the transaction.  As a result, the adversary proceeding was a separate claim first made in 2009, after the Insured v. Insured Exclusion had been amended to carve-back coverage for bankruptcy actions like the adversary proceeding.  The court therefore further held that the Exclusion did not apply to negate the excess insurers’ duty to defend the individual insureds against the adversary proceeding.