We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 1,108

Notice of intent to sue attorney for malpractice triggered duty to defend claim for sanctions
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • January 30 2009

Applying Pennsylvania law, a federal district court has held that a letter advising an insured attorney that his former client intended to bring suit for malpractice constituted a “claim” under a professional liability policy such that the insurer was obligated to defend pre-suit proceedings against the attorney for sanctions that had been brought by opposing counsel in the underlying action and in which the former client had joined the demand for relief


Priority of payments provision allows insurer to make settlement payments on covered claims against directors and officers
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • October 25 2012

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska has held that an insurer may make settlement payments for claims against a debtor’s directors and officers where any claims of the debtor are subordinate to those of the directors and officers under the terms of the policy


Appellate court upholds allocation of loss based on “relative exposure” standard
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2007

The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division has affirmed a trial court's ruling that the terms of a management liability policy allowed the insurer to allocate loss between insured and non-insured parties through the application of the "relative exposure" standard


No coverage for claim based on officer’s ultra vires act, or breach of contract
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • December 12 2007

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that a construction company is not entitled to coverage under its D&O policy because the underlying claim sought recovery for breach of contract and was based on alleged representations by an officer made outside the scope of his authority


"Bump up" exclusion bars coverage for claims against insured company, but not against directors & officers
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • November 9 2010

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, applying Massachusetts law, has held that the plain language of an "inadequate consideration" or "bump up" exclusion bars coverage for that portion of a settlement payment made to settle claims against the company, but not to any amounts that may have been paid to indemnify directors and officers


Securities Exclusion may not negate duty to defend where ERISA action alleges conduct outside exclusion’s scope
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • February 24 2014

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada, applying Nevada law, granted in part and denied in part an insurer's motion to dismiss


Definition of wrongful act and intentional acts exclusion bar coverage for action alleging fraud and conspiracy
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • November 14 2012

Applying Illinois law, the Appellate Court of Illinois has held, based on the policy’s definition of “wrongful act” and its intentional acts exclusion, that a professional liability insurer has no duty to defend an action alleging fraud and conspiracy


Attorney-client and work-product privileges not waived by disclosure to insurer
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • October 29 2008

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that an insured did not waive the attorney-client privilege or the work-product privilege by sharing protected materials with its insurer


Section 11 damages: covered "loss"?
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 6 2008

Two cases recently addressed the issue of whether settlements for claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act") constitute covered loss under professional liability insurance policies


Shining the spotlight on McCarran-Ferguson; what happens when state and federal legislative goals collide?
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 7 2011

A recent opinion by the Texas Supreme Court (Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc. No. 10-0245, issued May 27, 2011) has illuminated the crux of the conflict between state regulation of insurance and broader policy objectives of the federal government