In July, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota issued a pro-policyholder decision rejecting an oft-made insurer argument regarding the supposed uninsurability of restitution.  U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., No. 12-cv-3175 (D. Minn. July 3, 2014) (ECF No. 105), reconsideration denied No. 12-cv-3175 (D. Minn July 24, 2014) (ECF No. 108).  U.S. Bank sought professional liability insurance coverage for a $55 million settlement and associated defense costs as to three class actions brought by U.S. Bank customers alleging overcharging of overdraft fees and seeking the return of such fees.  The insurers denied coverage and brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings, claiming that the settlement entered into by U.S. Bank was excluded from the definition of “Loss” in the insurance policies.  That definition precluded coverage for “[m]atters which are uninsurable under the law pursuant to which this Policy is construed,” which in this case was Delaware law.  The court ruled that the settlement was not uninsurable under Delaware law because no Delaware statute or case law precluded insurance coverage for settlements constituting restitution.  Further supporting its decision, the court pointed to an exclusion in the policies that precluded coverage for ill gotten gains (such as restitution), but only as determined by a final adjudication in an underlying action.  The court reasoned that this meant the policies excluded restitution only in the event of a final adjudication and by implication provided coverage for restitution stemming from a settlement.  The court also held that an extension of credit exclusion did not apply because the insurers’ interpretation was overbroad and untenable and because the class actions alleged fees were charged when there were still positive balances in customer accounts.