Purchasers of D&O and professional liability insurance often are stunned when their carriers deny coverage on the theory that their policies do not cover liabilities characterized as “restitutionary,” i.e., where a judgment or settlement requires the insured to “disgorge” a sum of monies. Insurers contend such damages are “uninsurable.” The surprise stems from the fact that some insurers attempt to stretch the argument that restitutionary payments are uninsurable to encompass claims for ordinary compensatory damages – such as breach of fiduciary duty claims or consumer class actions – arguing that these claims are asking the insureds to return “ill-gotten gains.” While it is far too early to administer last rites to the “restitution/disgorgement defense,” recent rulings 
suggest that the courts have recognized that denying claims based on vague concepts of “insurability” creates too much uncertainty for policyholders and have found several ways to curtail this overreaching practice.
When a jury awards punitive damages against an insurance company for bad faith, the maximum it may award is determined based on a multiple of its underlying award of compensatory damages and attorney fees (so-called “Brandt fees”). In a June 9 decision, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that when a judge, instead of a jury, awards the attorney fees, they should still be included when considering the maximum punitive damages the jury may award.
insured,” to require collection of the full amount of primary polices in order to exhaust them. The Zeig court emphasized that a compromise payment by the primary insurer discharges the limits of the primary coverage, while the excess insurer is unharmed, since it must pay only the amount exceeding the attachment point of its policy.
duty to defend a contractor who should have expected property damage resulting from its use of certain equipment on a construction project. The decision cautions contractors around the country to consider the expected consequences of their on-site actions to avoid arguments from insurers that any resulting damages are not accidental.
Most of the time, such insurer demands are unjustified. But companies should understand when and under what circumstances insurers might seek reimbursement or recoupment of defense costs so they can avoid agreeing to do so unnecessarily or at least plan in advance financially.
Orion Insurance Company is now set to join its mythic namesake as an artifact of history, though without the long-lasting twinkle. Barring one important, if remote, opt-out scenario, Orion and its sister company, the London and Overseas Insurance Company Limited (collectively OIC), are expected to dim and fade away over the next few years.
The particular information request at issue in Ash Grove Cement is known as a “104(e) letter,” which is issued by the EPA under section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). As companies that have owned or operated a contaminated site know from experience, a 104(e) letter or a similar request under state environmental law typically is the first step in a regulatory enforcement process under which they face strict and retroactive liability for the costs of investigating and cleaning up the site. The ruling in Ash Grove Cement means that defense cost coverage begins at this critical juncture and continues until site investigation and cleanup is completed.
time, companies should also prepare for the possibility that precautions are not enough to prevent all attacks. As a result, preparations should also include steps such as creating a comprehensive crisis response plan as well as reviewing the “terrorism” provisions in the company’s insurance policies.