PART 1: Representations & Warranties Insurance in Today’s Deal Market: Why It Matters More Than Ever

Introduction

Representations and warranties insurance (“RWI”) has rapidly evolved from a niche product used in select transactions to a near-standard feature in middle-market private equity deals. What was once viewed as an optional risk-transfer tool is now often a central component of deal structuring—influencing everything from bid competitiveness to post-closing risk allocation.

As a result, understanding how RWI functions in practice—and how to use it effectively—has become critical for buyers, sellers, and their advisors alike. This post is the first in a short series focused on the transactional and recovery-side realities of RWI, including how policies are structured, how claims arise, and where parties most often encounter challenges.

In addition, one of the recurring themes seen in practice is the need for early and ongoing coordination between deal and insurance recovery teams when issues arise post-closing. Decisions around whether and when to pursue seller indemnification, and when to engage insurers, are often made quickly and can have significant implications for recovery. This series will also touch on how to better align those efforts in real time.

The Rise of RWI in the Modern Deal Environment

Over the past decade, RWI has become increasingly prevalent in private equity and middle-market M&A transactions. In competitive auction processes in particular, buyers frequently rely on RWI to differentiate their bids by minimizing or eliminating the seller’s post-closing indemnity exposure.

From the seller’s perspective, RWI offers a “clean exit”—reducing or eliminating the need for large escrows and limiting ongoing liability following closing. From the buyer’s perspective, RWI provides a credit-worthy source of recovery in the event that representations and warranties prove to be inaccurate.

This alignment of incentives has driven widespread adoption. Today, in many deal processes, the question is no longer whether RWI will be used, but rather how the policy will be structured and negotiated.

Why RWI Has Become a Deal-Driver

Several factors have contributed to the increased reliance on RWI:

  • Competitive deal dynamics. Buyers can make more attractive bids by offering reduced indemnity packages, often backed by RWI.
  • Risk transfer. RWI shifts a significant portion of post-closing risk from the seller to a third-party insurer. This is particularly attractive in deals with rollover sellers as it can help avoid a fight with a current partner in the business.
  • Process efficiency. Negotiations over indemnity provisions are often streamlined when RWI is in place.
  • Liquidity for sellers. Sellers—particularly private equity funds—benefit from the ability to distribute proceeds more quickly without maintaining large escrows.

At the same time, insurers have become more sophisticated in underwriting these risks, and the market has matured significantly in terms of pricing, retention levels, and policy structure.

The Role of RWI for Breaches

While RWI is often viewed as a tool for facilitating deal execution, its significance extends well beyond signing and closing. The policy ultimately governs the parties’ rights and obligations in the event of a breach, and its terms can materially affect the outcome of post-closing disputes.

In particular, RWI plays a central role in:

  • Allocating post-closing risk. Determining whether losses are borne by the buyer, the seller, or the insurer.
  • Shaping claims strategy. Influencing how and when buyers pursue recovery.
  • Interacting with transaction documents. Operating alongside (and sometimes in tension with) indemnification provisions in the purchase agreement.

Despite this, many deal participants focus heavily on the underwriting process while giving comparatively less attention to how the policy will function in a claim scenario.

This dynamic also highlights the importance of coordination between transaction and insurance recovery teams once a potential breach is identified. In practice, questions frequently arise as to whether to pursue recovery from the seller, the insurer, or both—and in what sequence. Bringing insurance recovery counsel into those discussions early, and re-engaging deal teams where necessary, can help ensure that those paths are aligned and that key facts and positions are developed consistently.

A Practical Gap: From Placement to Recovery

As RWI has become more widely used, an important area of focus has been how policies perform in practice when a claim arises, as compared to how they are negotiated during the deal process.

In particular, issues such as the scope of diligence, the wording of key policy provisions, and the alignment between the purchase agreement and the policy often take on increased significance after closing. Decisions made during underwriting—while appropriate in the context of a fast-moving transaction—can have meaningful implications for coverage when viewed through a claims lens.

One area where this dynamic frequently emerges is in the application of policy exclusions. During underwriting, exclusions are often negotiated and understood to address specific, identified risks—such as a known issue surfaced in diligence or a discrete area of uncertainty. In the claims context, however, insurers may purport to interpret those same exclusions more broadly, seeking to apply them to losses that are outside the originally contemplated scope. For this reason, in addition to using RWI as a transactional tool, it is equally important (if not more so) for parties to think about how RWI policy provisions will be interpreted and applied in the claims context.

A related consideration is that post-closing issues are often addressed across multiple workstreams. Deal teams may initially focus on seller indemnification, while insurance considerations are addressed separately or later in the process. Conversely, disputes teams may need to revisit diligence findings or transaction history without full involvement from the original deal team. Coordinating across these efforts early can help ensure alignment and may materially impact both coverage and overall recovery.

Conclusion

RWI has become an integral part of the modern M&A landscape. But as its use has expanded, so too has the need for a deeper understanding of how these policies operate after closing.

For deal professionals, the key takeaway is straightforward: RWI is not just a tool for getting the deal done—it is a framework that governs risk allocation long after closing. Approaching it with that perspective—and ensuring coordination between transaction and recovery efforts when issues arise—can make a meaningful difference in both deal execution and ultimate recovery.

Looking Ahead: A Practical Series on RWI

This post is the first in a series examining RWI through a practical lens, with a focus on the issues that most often impact coverage and recovery, including the following topics:

  • The relationship between diligence and RWI coverage;
  • Common policy provisions that drive coverage outcomes;
  • How RWI interacts with purchase agreement remedies;
  • The types of issues that most frequently give rise to claims;
  • The realities of pursuing recovery under an RWI policy; and
  • Practical considerations for coordinating between deal and insurance recovery teams when pursuing post-closing recovery.

Our goal is to provide a concise, experience-based perspective on how RWI functions in practice—both as a deal tool and as an insurance product.

Employers nationwide are experiencing a new wave of ERISA litigation targeting so-called “tobacco surcharges” on employees enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans. Because these lawsuits are generally brought as putative class actions, the stakes can be significant and some multi-million dollar settlements have already become public. But employers need not face the costs of defending and resolving these ERISA cases alone. Fiduciary liability insurance policies generally require insurers to pay for defense costs incurred in ERISA class actions and, depending on their terms and conditions, fiduciary liability policies may cover most, if not all, of any eventual settlements or judgments. Employers should carefully review reservation of rights letters and resist efforts by fiduciary liability insurers to improperly resist or limit coverage for tobacco surcharge litigation.

Continue Reading Maximizing Insurance Coverage for Emerging ‘Tobacco Surcharge’ ERISA Litigation

The insurance industry has been swift to adopt artificial intelligence (“AI”). According to consulting firm McKinsey & Company, 76% of insurers surveyed have already begun using generative AI in their day-to-day operations. [1] This adoption spans the different facets of insurers’ work cycles, including claims, underwriting, legal, and risk management. Policyholders and their attorneys must remain aware of the potential pitfalls of AI implementation, particularly as it pertains to claims management.

Continue Reading Insurance Industry’s Use of AI: A Fair or Unfair Claim Settlement Practice?

A New Risk Landscape for AI Infrastructure

Escalating tensions involving Iran—including maritime incidents affecting oil transport and alleged cyber and physical targeting of digital infrastructure in the Middle East—highlight a growing and underappreciated risk for AI-driven data centers: disruption that originates far beyond the insured’s own operations.  These developments are not occurring in a vacuum.  They come at a time when hyperscale data center expansion has become a central driver of economic growth in the United States, as well as a national security priority, underpinning everything from cloud computing to artificial intelligence development.

Continue Reading When Geopolitic Events Disrupt the Cloud: Insurance Coverage for Data Center Supply Chain Losses in a New Era of Conflict

On January 27, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a significant pro-policyholder decision affirming that directors and officers (“D&O”) insurers must cover a $28 million settlement paid by Harman International Industries Inc., to resolve stockholder litigation arising from its multi-billion dollar sale to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling that the applicable D&O policy’s Bump-Up Provision did not exclude coverage for the settlement, rejecting the insurers’ arguments that the payment effectively increased the merger consideration and was therefore barred under the policy.

The Court’s analysis centered on the specific structure of the Bump-Up Provision, which excluded coverage when (1) an underlying claim alleged that the acquisition consideration was inadequate, and (2) a settlement payment represented an effective increase in that consideration. While the Supreme Court agreed that the securities claims satisfied the first requirement, it held that the insurers failed to prove the $28 million settlement functioned as an effective increase in deal consideration. This rendered the Bump-Up Provision inapplicable as a bar to coverage.

In evaluating whether the settlement represented an “effective increase” in consideration, the Supreme Court examined the settlement terms, class of recipients, timing, and nature of the payment. The Court made clear that compensatory payments tied to alleged legal harm do not automatically equate to a repricing of a transaction. The coverage analysis therefore depends on the policy’s wording and the real-world effect of the payment, not simply the transactional setting.

For policyholders facing post-closing stockholder suits and other M&A-related disputes, the Harman decision confirms that D&O coverage may be available where a bump-up exclusion requires proof that a settlement represents an effective increase in consideration and the insurers cannot meet their burden to make that showing. Settlements are not excluded merely because they arise from a transaction.  Courts will require a clear alignment between the exclusion’s wording and the loss at issue, rather than relying on broad insurer characterizations of the loss. 

The Harman decision also underscores how subtle drafting differences in the policy language, such as how the terms “representing,” “effectively,” or “consideration” are framed, can impact or determine the outcome of a coverage dispute. This serves as a timely reminder of the importance of reviewing and negotiating corporate insurance policies at renewal, including a company’s D&O policy—a core fundamental coverage for most all public and private companies and their individual directors and officers. The Harman decision reflects the reality that a number of policy provisions in D&O policies can vary widely, and small wording changes can have substantial consequences. With slightly different language in the Bump-Up Provision in Harman, the result here (millions of dollars in insurance coverage) could have been different, underscoring the value of policy reviews by counsel before renewing your policies and after a claim arises without accepting insurers’ often inaccurate interpretations at face value.

Representations and warranties insurance (RWI) has become a fixture in today’s M&A landscape, offering buyers and sellers a mechanism to shift risk and streamline negotiations. Yet, as the RWI market matures, certain recurring disputes highlight the friction between deal economics, coverage intent, and post-closing realities. One common dispute arises when a pre-closing breach continues after the Closing date, raising the thorny question: when does loss stem from a covered pre-closing breach, and when is it attributable to post-closing conduct that falls outside the policy?

Continue Reading The Breach That Won’t Die: Navigating Post-Closing Conduct and RWI Coverage Disputes

Government and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety directives have led to a reduction in flights beginning November 7, 2025, to protect people and property from potential accidents. The FAA’s Emergency Order Establishing Limitations on the Use of Navigable Airspace explains that the restrictions are necessary “to ensure the safety of aircraft” and “[t]o maintain the highest standards of safety” in the National Airspace System. For companies whose operations or revenues are affected, these measures may give rise to recoveries under general liability and property insurance policies.

Continue Reading Obtaining Insurance Recoveries From FAA-Mandated Flight Reductions

On October 20, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant decision clarifying that an insurer’s duty to defend under Texas law extends to a contractually mandated alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceeding.[i] The Fifth Circuit reversed a magistrate judge’s dismissal of BPX Production Co.’s (BPX) coverage claims, holding that an ADR proceeding triggers an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy—thus rejecting the insurer’s argument that a “suit” was required.  Further, the Fifth Circuit held that an insurer’s conduct can waive conditions to coverage. This decision provides important guidance for corporate policyholders navigating insurance disputes involving an ADR proceeding, policy defenses asserted by insurers, and the assignment of insurance rights to maximize an insurance recovery in the circumstance of a bankruptcy.

Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Issues Pro-Policyholder Ruling that ADR Proceeding Triggered Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify

Amazon’s recent announcement to invest at least $20 billion in cloud computing and AI data center campuses across Pennsylvania—a record‑breaking private investment in the Commonwealth—marks a turning point in digital infrastructure build-out.  Spanning sites in Luzerne and Bucks counties, the project promises 1,250 full‑time roles and thousands more in construction, while pairing with high‑demand energy sources like a nearby nuclear plant. The rapid expansion of AI data centers poses a unique set of risks—ranging from construction hazards to power and environmental challenges— and highlights the need those involved in these large infrastructure projects to close potential insurance coverage gaps and to explore alternative risk transfer solutions.

Continue Reading The New Frontier: Data Centers, AI & Insurance Implications

Last month, the New York Supreme Court issued a well-reasoned order denying the Archdiocese’s insurers’[1] motion to dismiss its claim against them for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding that the policyholder’s complaint sufficiently alleged its Insurers claim handling conduct amounted to bad faith.[2]  The Order is part of a new trend in New York that allows bad-faith claims to proceed when styled as claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, where the conduct supporting the alleged bad-faith claim is independent of the alleged conduct giving rise to a breach of contract claim, and the policyholder sufficiently alleges damages arising from the bad-faith conduct. 

Continue Reading The Archdiocese Resurrects Faith in the New York Court System:  New York Supreme Court Issues Another Decision Allowing a New York Policyholder to Seek Damages for Bad-Faith Claim Handling