HNRK Coverage Corner
On November 23, 2021, the New York Court of Appeals issued a decision in J.P. Morgan Secs. Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 06528, resolving a long-standing coverage dispute over whether a disgorgement payment made as part of the settlement of an SEC enforcement action constituted a “penalty” that was excluded from coverage under a liability policy’s definition of “loss.” The Appellate Division, First Department, in a decision previously covered on this blog, held that the payment was a penalty. That decision relied principally on a 2017 decision of the United States Supreme Court, issued long after the events at issue, holding that such a disgorgement payment was a “penalty” for purposes of determining the applicable statute of limitations for an enforcement action.
The Court of Appeals (with Judge Rivera dissenting) reversed the First Department and held that the payment was not a “fine or penalty” under the policy. The decision articulates at least two important interpretive principles.
First, the Court observes that “limiting language in the definition of coverage” (such as the carve-out of “fines or penalties” from the definition of “loss”’) is subject to the same standard applicable to policy exclusions: the insurer bears the burden of demonstrating that the limitation applies. This is a definitive rejection of the argument sometimes made by insurers that coverage limitations appearing in an insuring clause are not subject to the rules governing interpretation of policy provisions that are expressly denominated an exclusion.
Second, the decision emphasizes the important principle that an insurance policy must be construed from the perspective of a reasonable person in the insured’s business at the time the policy was issued. The majority observed that “when the parties entered into these insurance contracts, the SEC believed it had the power—as an equitable remedy—to require an entity that facilitated wrongdoing to ‘disgorge’ profits wrongfully obtained by third parties.” The subsequent Supreme Court decision characterizing the disgorgement remedy as a “penalty” was not controlling, as the “regulatory climate in effect at the time these insurers agreed to provide coverage” was the relevant context for interpreting the policy.
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Delaware Bankruptcy Court Rules That Qui Tam Action Filed Under Seal—and Never Served—Triggers D&O Policy’s Prior and Pending Litigation Exclusion
- “Related Acts” and the Claims Made Policy—The Policy Provision that “Cannot Be Applied Literally”
- California Court Rules that FTC’s Civil Investigative Demand is Not a Covered Claim Under Technology Errors and Omissions Policy
- Delaware Court Dismisses D&O Coverage Action as Premature Under Policy’s “No Action” Clause
- Chubb Prepares to Pay $350 Million to State of Maryland for Baltimore Bridge Collapse
- Sixth Circuit Rules That Insurer is Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs, Holding That Reservation of Rights Letter Created an Implied-In-Fact Contract
- Fifth Circuit Holds Contract Exclusion Does Not Bar Defense Coverage for Ticket Holders Lawsuit Arising From Festival Cancelled During Covid-19 Pandemic
- HNRK Secures Win for Syngenta in Insurance Coverage Appeal at Delaware Supreme Court
- New York Court Considers Evidence Regarding Insurers Handling of Prior Claims in Denying Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
- HNRK Insurance Recovery Partners Author Article for Chambers 2024 Global Practice Guide
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- D&O Policies
- CGL Policies
- Duty to Defend
- Damages
- E&O Policies
- Related Claims
- Occurrence/Accident
- Rules of Interpretation
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Cyber Coverage
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- Indemnification and Advancement
- COVID-19
- Pollution Exclusion
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Excess Insurance
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Covered Loss
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018