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
Fifth Circuit Issues Pro-Policyholder Ruling that ADR Proceeding Triggered Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify
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
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
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
The SEC’s Cybersecurity Incident, Governance, and Management Reporting Requirements: What you Need to Know to Avoid Cyber and D&O Coverage Gaps
The SEC public company cyber disclosure rule raises issues that companies should consider in reviewing existing insurance coverage and in assessing overall risk.
The SEC recently adopted a new cybersecurity disclosure related rule (the “SEC Cyber Disclosure Rule”)[1] in response to increasing risks associated with cyber incidents and a perceived need for investors to receive more fulsome corporate disclosures about cybersecurity risks, governance, and material incidents. In prior efforts to improve consistency and accuracy of public company cybersecurity risk disclosures, the SEC issued interpretive guidance explaining how cybersecurity risk and incidents should be communicated based on long-standing requirements to periodically—and as needed—disclose material information to shareholders.[2] But in spite of this guidance, in the SEC’s view corporate disclosure practices remained inconsistent, under-disclosure persisted, and investors lacked consistent information by which they could evaluate public companies’ cybersecurity risk. In July 2023, the SEC adopted the SEC Cyber Disclosure Rule, which mandated new disclosures among other things, and which became effective in December 2023.Continue Reading The SEC’s Cybersecurity Incident, Governance, and Management Reporting Requirements: What you Need to Know to Avoid Cyber and D&O Coverage Gaps
Xerox Obtains Important Pro-Policyholder Decision in New York’s First Department, Adopting Narrow Construction of “Arising From” Exclusions and Confirming That Insurers Who Show Indifference to Policyholders’ Rights May Be Liable for Bad Faith in New York
In March last year, New York’s Appellate Division – First Department issued Xerox an important pro-policyholder decision in its D&O insurance recovery action against Travelers, arising from Xerox’s failed 2018 merger with Fujifilm. In a thoughtful order, the court issued three key pro-policyholder rulings that: (1) reinforce the rule that the words “arising from” when used in policy exclusions should be narrowly construed under New York law; (2) recognize that an insurer who shows bad faith indifference to its policyholder’s rights may be held liable for a breach of the duty of good faith and extracontractual damages under New York law; and (3) held that the reasonableness of an underlying settlement is an issue of fact that should go to the jury. A copy of the Court’s decision is available here.Continue Reading Xerox Obtains Important Pro-Policyholder Decision in New York’s First Department, Adopting Narrow Construction of “Arising From” Exclusions and Confirming That Insurers Who Show Indifference to Policyholders’ Rights May Be Liable for Bad Faith in New York
Recent Decision from Eastern District of New York Confirms D&O Coverage for False Claims Act Defense Costs
A recent decision by a federal court in the Eastern District of New York illustrates how directors and officers (“D&O”) policies can provide valuable insurance coverage for defense costs and potential liabilities arising from False Claims Act (“FCA”) litigation. In Northern Metropolitan Foundation for Healthcare, Inc. v. RSUI Indemnity Company, Case No. 20-CV-2224 (EK)
Tips to Maximize Insurance Recoveries for Hurricane Helene Property Damage and Business Interruption Losses
RELATED UPDATE: Tips for Pursuing Insurance Claims and Disaster Relief Funding in North Carolina After Hurricane Helene (October 3, 2024)
Hurricane Helene made landfall on Thursday, September 26, 2024, carrying catastrophic 140 mph winds as the first known Category 4 storm to hit Florida’s Big Bend region since records began in 1851. By Friday, Hurricane Helene’s effects could be felt through Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, with numerous fatalities and significant property damage and power outages reported across the entire southeastern United States. Flooding from the storm resulted in highway and road closures throughout the region, including Interstate 40 in North Carolina, and multiple dams in Tennessee and North Carolina were on the brink of failure before stormwaters began to subside.Continue Reading Tips to Maximize Insurance Recoveries for Hurricane Helene Property Damage and Business Interruption Losses
Financial Institutions and Bank Directors and Officers in the Crosshairs – Are Their Insurance Policies Really Primed and Ready?
With bank stability and the related stock market rout now dominating the headlines for the first time since the 2008 financial crisis, are financial institutions’ D&O and bankers’ professional liability / E&O (“BPL”) liability policies ready to help backstop coverage, or potentially full of holes? Coming out of a hard market where insurers carefully and quietly pulled back some policy enhancements over the course of several years, now is the time for financial institutions to review their insurance policies to identify and fill any significant gaps and holes in their executive risk coverages. The last two weeks demonstrate that financial institutions, as well as their directors and officers, face the risks of receivership, government investigations, securities lawsuits, and personal liability following a bank failure or stock rout in the face of financial stability concerns. Continue Reading Financial Institutions and Bank Directors and Officers in the Crosshairs – Are Their Insurance Policies Really Primed and Ready?
Ohio Supreme Court Holds that Insurance Policy Does Not Cover Ransomware Attack on Software
In a unanimous decision, the Ohio Supreme Court found that appellee EMOI Services, LLC’s (“EMOI”) businessowners insurance policy does not cover losses resulting from a ransomware attack on EMOI’s computer software systems.Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court Holds that Insurance Policy Does Not Cover Ransomware Attack on Software
North Carolina Supreme Court Provides Guidance to Policyholders Attempting to Maximize Insurance Coverage for Long-Tail Claims
When seeking insurance coverage for “long-tail” mass tort and environmental claims that involve alleged exposures and injuries spanning multiple years, businesses often look to their occurrence-based commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies. These policies are designed to provide broad coverage for defense costs, settlements, and potentially adverse judgements. However, CGL policies generally cover “occurrences” during one-year policy periods and renew on an annual basis, which can complicate efforts to seek coverage for claims involving alleged injuries or property damage spanning decades. Moreover, for severe claims, businesses may need to obtain access to one or more of their excess CGL policies. Therefore, determining which policies to pursue, whether policies in multiple policy periods will respond, and how to access valuable excess coverage are factors that should always be considered with coverage counsel when facing long-tail exposures. Courts across the country are divided on how these questions should be answered. A recent decision issued by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indemnity Co., provides guidance to North Carolina policyholders attempting to maximize coverage for long-tail claims.Continue Reading North Carolina Supreme Court Provides Guidance to Policyholders Attempting to Maximize Insurance Coverage for Long-Tail Claims