HNRK Coverage Corner

This week at the Coverage Corner, we discuss Flextronics Int’l, Ltd. v. Allianz, 25-CV-1511(PAE)—a recent decision out of the Southern District of New York that examines an often disputed, but less-frequently litigated, issue in the realm of D&O coverage:  the allocation of a settlement payment between covered and non-covered loss.  Settlements often resolve a mix of claims against the insureds, some of which (such as securities fraud) may be subject to coverage and others of which (such as breach of contract claims) may not be.  Alternatively, the same settlement might be made on ...

This week at the Coverage Corner, we take a look across the river at a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey that held a dishonest employee’s multi-year scheme to steal money from his employer was one occurrence subject to the per-occurrence limit for a single policy year.  Whether a loss is the result of a single occurrence or multiple occurrences can be a critical question in coverage litigation.  We have previously written about the issue in the context of wildfire liability coverage and, like today’s issue, employee theft.

In today’s case ...

Last month, in CITGO Petroleum Corp. v. Ascot Underwriting Ltd., Case No. 24-0227-cv, the Second Circuit affirmed a victory for CITGO Petroleum Corporation (“CITGO”) when it held that oil seized in Venezuela was covered by a marine cargo reinsurance policy (the “Policy”) that provided coverage for losses caused by an “insurrection.”  On appeal, the Reinsurers argued Venezuela’s instability did not qualify as an insurrection, and they also urged a proximate-cause standard (rather than but-for) for the loss.

Background

In October 2012, Hugo Chávez won reelection ...

Today at the Coverage Corner, we examine a Fifth Circuit decision that ponders a fundamental question: What is a “suit”? A complaint filed in court or arbitration demand seeking money damages should qualify. But what about a pre-lawsuit ADR procedure? Like all questions of policy interpretation, the answer lies in the policy language, construed in accordance with the established rules of policy interpretation (including, for example, the canon that ambiguities are construed “in favor of the insured”).

At issue in BPX Prod. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s ...

This week at the Coverage Corner, we return with an update on a Delaware case about which we’ve written previously.  In Origis USA LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., Case No. N23C-07-102, the Delaware Superior Court held that because the primary policy had a “No Action” clause, the insureds’ suit against their D&O insurers for advancement of defense costs was premature as long as the underlying litigation was ongoing.  We wrote about that decision here.

In July, the Delaware Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration in light of what it said were arguments from the parties ...