Alliant note and disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance. Please note that prior to implementation your legal counsel should review all details or policy information. Alliant Insurance Services does not provide legal advice or legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please seek the services of your own legal advisor or ask Alliant Insurance Services for a referral. This document is provided on an “as is” basis without any warranty of any kind. Alliant Insurance Services disclaims any liability for any loss or damage from reliance on this document.
Insight
2024 Financial Lines Executive Liability Newsletter
By Alliant
Navigating today’s complex risk environment can be a monumental task. Steve Shappell, Alliant Claims & Legal, spearheads Executive Liability Insights, a monthly review of news, legal developments and information on executive liability, cyber risk, employment practices liability, class action trends and more.
In this issue:
- D&O CARRIER CANNOT DENY COVERAGE BASED ON INSURED VERSUS INSURED EXCLUSION DUE TO BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION
- EXCESS CARRIERS WITH AN EXPRESS DISCLAIMER ON DUTY TO DEFEND ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ADVANCE DEFENSE COSTS
- INSURER CANNOT DENY COVERAGE FOR DEFENSE COSTS BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCLUSION DUE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EXCEPTION
- COURT HOLDS THAT LATE NOTICE PREJUDICED AN EXCESS CARRIER AND RELIEVES CARRIER FROM PROVIDING A DEFENSE
- THE IMPORTANCE OF INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS IN CONTRACTS WITH THIRD PARTY VENDORS
- NO COVERAGE FROM EXCESS INSURERS UNTIL EXHAUSTION IS SHOWN
- FTC SETTLEMENT WITH HOTEL CHAIN PLACES CYBERSECURITY IN FOCUS
In this issue:
- ARBITRATION PROVISION IN D&O INSURANCE POLICY DOES NOT APPLY TO DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS
- NETWORK-SECURITY INSURANCE CARRIER HAD A DUTY TO REIMBURSE AND DEFEND THE INSURED
- EXCESS CARRIER HAD NO OBLIGATION TO PAY BASED ON ANTITRUST EXCLUSION AND EXHAUSTION
- ILLINOIS AMENDS HUMAN RIGHTS ACT CREATING LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYERS’ USE OF AI
- CIRCUIT COURT CONSIDERS WHETHER INSUREDS’ NOTICE WAS TIMELY UNDER NEW YORK CONTRACT STATUTE
- 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED “PURCHASER-SELLER RULE” TO BAR CLAIMS BROUGHT BY SPAC INVESTORS
- COURT REVIVES PRIVACY CLASS ACTION AGAINST A LEADING SEARCH ENGINE
In this issue:
- AMENDMENT TO BIPA OFFERS POTENTIAL RELIEF TO EMPLOYERS
- CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF APP-BASED
- TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES BY UPHOLDING GIG WORKER LAW
- CROWDSTRIKE OUTAGE SHOULD PROMPT INSUREDS TO REVIEW THEIR POLICY WORDING
- IN TEXAS, DENIAL OF COVERAGE BASED ON MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION REQUIRES INTENT TO DECEIVE
- FEDERAL COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF INSURER REGARDING LATE NOTICE AND PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXCLUSION
- NEW YORK FINANCIAL REGULATORS TACKLE USE OF AI BY INSURANCE INDUSTRY
- NO-ACTION CLAUSE IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM THE DUTY TO DEFEND
In this issue:
- SUPREME COURT ENDS CHEVRON DEFERENCE
- COVERAGE NEUTRALITY – DISTRICT COURT RULES THAT INSURER CANNOT IMPROPERLY INTERVENE IN INSUREDS’ INTERNAL BOARD DISPUTES
- D&O PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EXCLUSION BARS COVERAGE FOR SOFTWARE DESIGN
- INSURERS COULD NOT WITHOLD CONSENT TO A SETTLEMENT UNREASONABLY, BUT WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
- SECOND CIRCUIT REINFORCED SHAREHOLDER STANDING TO ASSERT SHORT-SWING PROFIT CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 16(B)
- A FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT BROADLY APPLIED THE BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCLUSION
- SECOND CIRCUIT RULES AGAINST THE ENFORCEABILITY OF ARBITRATION CLAUSES IN ERISA PLANS
- OTHER INSURANCE CLAUSE RELIEVES INSURER OF ITS DUTY TO DEFEND OBLIGATIONS
- SUPREME COURT PERMITS INSURER TO CHALLENGE PROPOSED CHAPTER 11 PLAN
- PANDEMIC RELATED BUSINESS INCOME LOSS IS NOT RECOVERABLE UNDER PROPERTY INSURANCE
- PENDING AND PRIOR LITIGATION EXCLUSION TRIGGERED BY QUI TAM ACTION
- MAJOR HOSPITAL SYSTEM HIT BY CYBERATTACK
- CYBER POLICY CORRECTLY OFFSETS PORTION OF NORMAL OPERATING EXPENSES
- COLORADO ENACTS FIRST IN THE NATION LAW GOVERNING THE
USE OF AI
- DELAWARE CLARIFIES CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDERS’ FIDUCIARY DUTIES
- NO COVERAGE UNDER E&O POLICY FOR A PAYMENT TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY FOLLOWING AN INVESTIGATION
- SECURITIES CLASS ACTION AND SUBSEQUENT GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS ARE NOT RELATED;
- TWO POLICY PERIODS TRIGGERED TO COVER LOSS
- IN ESOP LITIGATION, DUTY TO DEFEND LASTS AS LONG AS COVERED ALLEGATIONS DO, EVEN IN LIGHT OF OVERBROAD EXCLUSIONS
- BAD FAITH ALLEGATION BY INSURED REQUIRED TO TRIGGER COVERAGE UNDER INSURANCE COMPANY'S PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY POLICY
- BANKRUPTCY COURT DECISION ALLOWS CREDITOR’S COMMITTEE DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AGAINST INSOLVENT LLC DEBTORS
- THIRD CIRCUIT LOWERS STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE SUITS
- NON-ACTION AND PRIOR ACTS CLAUSES BAR D&O COVERAGE
- UPDATE: A FEDERAL COURT DECIDES BUMP-UP EXCLUSION BARS COVERAGE UNDER D&O POLICY FOLLOWING A MERGER
- INSURERS AVOID COVERAGE BASED ON CHANGES IN EXPOSURE PROVISION
- AN INDEMNIFICATION CONTRACT REQUIRES AN OUT-OF-POCKET LOSS
- SECOND CIRCUIT PRECLUDES COVERAGE UNDER A DUTY TO DEFEND POLICY IF THE BANKRUPTCY/INSOLVENCY EXCLUSION IS TRIGGERED
- TRIGGERING THE PRIOR ACTS EXCLUSION IS A HIGH BAR FOR INSURERS TO MEET
- EXCESS D&O INSURER’S RELATED CLAIMS ARGUMENT FAILS
- INSURER SHOULD ACCEPT COVERAGE UNLESS IT IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT COVERAGE IS EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED
- FIFTH CIRCUIT LIMITS THE BROAD APPLICATION OF THE CONTRACT EXCLUSION
- 2ND CIRCUIT RULES PRE-SUIT DEMAND LETTER CONSTITUTES A CLAIM
- NON-PARTY TO PROFESSIONAL LIABILTIY POLICY CANNOT SEEK CONTRIBUTION FROM INSURER
- SPAC INSURERS CANNOT AVOID ADVANCEMENT OF DEFENSE COSTS BASED ON CHANGE-IN-CONTROL EXCLUSION
- LATE NOTICE RESULTS IN NO COVERAGE UNDER CLAIMS-MADE POLICY
- PLAINTIFFS LAWYER’S LETTER WARNING OF POTENTIAL LITIGATION IS NOT A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
- IN TEXAS, ONLY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS RESULTING FROM AN ADVERSARIAL PROCESS MAY BIND LIABILITY INSURERS
- THIRD CIRCUIT DENIES EN BANC REHEARING REQUEST FOR A PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG MANUFACTURER
- PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY POLICY RESCINDED FOR MISSTATEMENT IN APPLICATION UNDER VIRGINIA LAW
- THE SUPREME COURT ESTABLISHES A WHISTLEBLOWER-FAVORING FRAMEWORK FOR SARBANES-OXLEY ACT VIOLATIONS
- CALIFORNIA JURY AWARDS SHAREHOLDERS $14.1 MILLION IN DAMAGES AFTER BUYOUT DEEMED MISLEADING AND UNFAIR
- EXCESS CARRIER HAS NO DUTY TO DEFEND BASED ON “OTHER INSURANCE” CLAUSE
- COURT FINDS COVERAGE FOR LOSSES LEADING BACK TO A SYSTEM FAILURE
- PONZI SCHEME FRAUDULENT TRANSFER INSURABLE AND NOT BARRED BY LENDING ACTS EXCLUSION
- A CONDITION PRECEDENT IN EXCESS POLICIES CAN LEAD TO COVERAGE BEING DENIED
- THE OBJECTIVE/SUBJECTIVE TEST FOR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXCLUSIONS
- WHETHER AN INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR IS TRULY INDEPENDENT IS A HIGHLY FACT-SPECIFIC QUERY
- THE DEFINITION OF A SECURITIES CLAIM, NOT ALWAYS EASY TO KNOW
- COURT OF CHANCERY DISMISSES DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PLEAD DEMAND FUTILITY
- THE INTERPLAY OF RELATED CLAIMS AND PRIOR NOTICE EXCLUSION
- ONEROUS PLEADING BURDEN IMPOSED FOR A CAREMARK BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM AGAINST AN OFFICER
- WHEN DOES A CIVIL INVESTIGATION DEMAND BECOME A CLAIM TO ALLOW DEFENSE COSTS TO ERODE THE RETENTION
- AN INDICTMENT NOT DEMANDING RELIEF IS NOT A “CLAIM” UNDER A PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY POLICY
Thanks for your message.
We’ll be in touch shortly.
