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

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


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


Notice of circumstances was too general to satisfy policy
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2007

A federal district court in Illinois has held that a policyholder failed to provide sufficient notice of circumstances that could potentially give rise to a claim to trigger coverage under a D&O policy where the policyholder informed the insurers that it was "contemplating" filing for bankruptcy and expected claims to be filed against its directors and officers


Notice under occurrence policies: issues beyond the prejudice debate
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2008

This article will review key notice issues under occurrence-based policies, underscoring how multifaceted and complex the questions are that can arise when a notice defense is presented


Competing other insurance clauses result in pro-rata sharing between insurers
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 28 2010

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, applying North Carolina law, has held that where an occurrence-based policy and a claims-made policy each contains an "other insurance" clause providing that the policy shall be excess of any other insurance, both carriers are equally liable for defense and indemnification of the insured


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


Fifth Circuit rejects “stacking” of consecutive policies’ limits
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • September 5 2008

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law, has held that stacking of consecutive primary policy limits is not permitted where a single covered event triggers coverage


Complaint filed with Department of Insurance is a “claim”
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • November 25 2013

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, applying Texas law, has held that a complaint filed with the Texas Department


Intentional misrepresentation claim within "liable in absence of contract" carve-back to contract exclusion; fraud of VP and chief technology officer not imputed to company under severability provision
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • August 8 2013

The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island has held that a policy's contract and fraud exclusions did not bar coverage for a


Massachusetts High Court rules that an excess carrier is not bound by the primary carrier’s coverage determinations
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • September 20 2007

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held in a case of first impression that a follow-form excess insurer is not bound by the primary insurer's coverage determination