Preferred General Partnership Liability ("GPL") Policies for Private Equity Firms
Private equity firms could be spending to much money on their D&O policies to cover their partnerships. Or, they could be leaving considerable gaps in their D&O policies to claims arising out of partnerships. A GPL policy can change all that, saving private equities money and providing critical coverage appropriate for private equity partnerships.
Reach for the Stick: Why Dynamite is Less Dangerous Than "Claims Made & Reported" Policies
Dynamite is inherently risky and should be treated with kid gloves. Nitroglycerin, an element, within the dynamite is susceptible to shock and so must be handled with extreme caution and care. Compared to dynamite, “Claims-Made-and-Reported” policies include a number of traps for the unwary policyholder that if not mindful can result in major losses.
Insurance Coverage Under E&O/D&O Policies for Fraud
In RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Murdock, a D&O policy was found to require the defense of a federal securities action. The court affirmed the trial court’s determination that a Profit/Fraud Exclusion did not apply, because there was no adjudication of the underlying action, which was a requirement for the exclusion.
Expanding Opportunities for Coverage of M&A Transactions in Representation and Warranty Insurance
The prevalence of RWI may lead corporations and their coverage counsel to ask whether it makes sense for them. How big must a deal be to make such a policy worthwhile? What opportunities exist—where can a policy be found, and what limits are available? Are there any pitfalls?
Duplicitous and Overbroad Insurer Constructions of Exclusions Improperly Deprive Policyholders of Coverage Benefits
Insurers, incentivized to avoid their duty to defend policyholders in lawsuits, have sometimes embraced the idea that even one connection between a policy exclusion and a claim is enough to relieve them of that duty. While a policy may state that it does not indemnify certain alleged offenses by the insured, the insurer should not be able to deny a defense where those allegations comprise only a portion of an otherwise covered suit.
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.
The Implied Right to Recoupment--A Tale of Smoke and Mirrors
In recent years, more and more courts have recognized that, absent some bilateral agreement, insurers do not have the right to recoup costs spent defending a policyholder when it is later determined that no duty to defend existed.
A Tale of Two Cases: What a Difference A Forum Makes
It is the rare set of cases that so graphically illustrates the different analytical approaches that Luna Gourmet Coffee & Tea Co.[1] and Sprint Lumber[2] follow, where the applicable law of the forum is of less import than the presumption of one court that false, frivolous, and groundless claims did not entitle the insured to defense if the court can deduce why the insured has not been sued for potentially covered claims, based on the court’s understanding of what facts would suffice to create a colorable claim for relief.
Assuring Pre-Tender Fees Are Recoverable by Providing Proper Notice to Insurers
A Failure to Provide Notice Even Where it Does Not Preclude the Right to Any Defense May Limit a Client to Recovery Of Only Post-Notice Attorneys’ Fees.
Avoiding Malpractice by Providing Prompt Notice of Intellectual Property Claims to Insurers
“Intellectual property attorneys may have a duty to apprize their clients of the need to notify their clients’ insurers of claims as part of their retention in order to fully represent their clients’ interests in a lawsuit for which they are counsel of record.”
Insurance Coverage for Intellectual Property Risks
A primer on the types of policies that one may turn to coverage for Intellectual Property issues
Insurers May Owe an Obligation to Defend Ongoing Lawsuits
Some policyholders, if queried, might presume that a lawsuit which incepts before they have a policy in force could not trigger coverage under that later-issued policy of insurance. Insurers would argue that no insurer would issue a policy that had a defense obligation as of the date of its inception so that a notice provided contemporaneously with the policy’s issuance would trigger any rights thereunder. Generally accepted insurance coverage principles, as applied to standardized commercial general liability policies, do not preclude coverage for claims/lawsuits alleging continuous tortious conduct which incept prior to issuance of “occurrence” based insurance. This article will explore circumstances where post-claim/lawsuit coverage may be available to policyholders.