Insured vs. Insured: An Exclusion Often Conspicuous by Its Absence
An Insured vs. Insured Exclusion is, as the name suggests, a policy provision that precludes coverage for lawsuits where people or organizations insured by the policy appear on both sides. They are virtually omnipresent in Directors & Officers (“D&O”) and Errors & Omissions (“E&O”) policies, but they are far less common in other policies that can potentially cover business litigation. Knowing all the coverage options under your own policies is obviously important as a defendant, but defendants are also advised to consider the plaintiffs policies.
What Insurers Do Not Want You to Know About the Policies They Sell
Insurance policies are difficult to read at the best of times. This is a calculated move by the insurance providers in the hopes that policyholders will not avail themselves of all the protections contained therein. On occasion, however, the insurers’ tactics can be turned upon them. The twisting, complicated language can sometimes open the door for policyholders to argue for coverage in areas the insurer may not have intended to provide it. Careful lawyering and receptive judges have codified several of these expanded coverage areas over the years, and a few such examples are presented below.
Insurance Coverage for Vehicular Accidents
Plaintiff’s lawyers often seek damages beyond those available under Defendant’s individual automobile policies. Where Defendants are working for an employer at the time of an accident, separate coverage under the Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy of the Defendant’s employer, which include Commercial Automotive coverage may be implicated.
Securing Insurance Coverage Benefits Under Homeowners' Policies for Partnership Disputes
Business dissolutions, especially of professional partnerships, range from law to accounting to medical and other similar ventures. These events often include communications to existing clients of an organization to secure continuing relationships following the dissolution. It is anticipated that a departing professional will explain that the dissolution arose, what organization or form of entity they will join, and with whom. Objective statements about the new organization, the benefits available there, and the character of the professional’s practice going forward are all appropriate and cannot be a basis for asserted tortious conduct. However, it is not uncommon in these scenarios for professionals to express unflattering views about equity participants in the now-dissolved prior organizations.