Print to PDF

Practice Highlights

  • We understand the financial and reputational risks that complex, high-stakes claims disputes present to insurers.
  • We are recognized industry thought leaders and strategists in D&O and professional liability.
  • We have an unparalleled network of active relationships to draw on in crafting creative solutions to complex, high-stakes claims.

Practice News

Events

Publications

Directors and Officers

Corporate directors and officers and financial institutions are facing an onslaught of litigation and increasing regulatory scrutiny as well as questions about the scope of protection they might receive through corporate indemnification, and under the D&O liability insurance policies designed to respond to these exposures. 

We represent professional liability insurers in high-stakes, complex claims.  While most of the claims we handle arise from directors & officers liability (D&O) policies, insurers that underwrite D&O insurance typically also underwrite errors & omissions (E&O) insurance for financial institutions and financial services firms, as well as for other business professionals, including investment banks, investment advisors, accounting firms, and large law firms.  For this reason, we regularly handle large E&O claims involving the same kinds of underlying litigation and governmental investigation claims activity that involve D&O policies.

Our insurer representations as coverage and monitoring counsel for D&O/FI insurer clients typically include the following component tasks:

  • Following an initial assessment of the claim documents and relevant insurance coverage information, the preparation of an initial report and draft coverage position letter for our insurer client;
  • Contact with the insured or defense counsel to arrange and conduct a liability, damages and coverage investigation;
  • Ongoing monitoring of the litigation and regular contact with defense counsel, while maintaining a regular reporting line of communications with the insurer client;
  • Damage analysis; and
  • Active participation in claim settlements where client insurer funds are being contributed.  These tasks require work performed at different levels of seniority and experience, necessitating a team approach to the handling of these matters.

The D&O Practice Group has an insurance practice focused on the representation of professional liability insurers as coverage/monitoring and coverage litigation counsel.  Other practice specialty areas include representations of insurance brokers on regulatory, transactional and litigation matters and the defense of employment-practices claims.

Our attorneys work with primary and excess domestic U.S., European and Bermuda insurers on a wide variety of significant claims involving directors and officers of public and private companies, as well as similar kinds of reputational risk litigation involving financial institution and financial services insureds.

Our team has significant involvement with respect to some of the last decade's largest scandals involving directors and officers and financial and professional insurance, including:

  • Adelphia
  • Enron
  • Lehman Brothers
  • IPO Laddering
  • Madoff-Related Litigation
  • Options Backdating-Related Litigation.
  • Subprime/Credit Crisis-Related Litigation
  • Tyco
  • Worldcom

In addition to our involvement as coverage and monitoring counsel in these complex claims, we also represent insurers in coverage litigation and arbitration arising under these types of insurance policies.

D&O insurers also call on our lawyers to assist in drafting policies and endorsements as well as in identifying risk management and risk evaluation tools to assist insurers in better managing these insured exposures.

Lawyers in our D&O Practice Group are also regularly involved in educational and insurance industry programs and seminars for D&O insurance professionals dealing with cutting-edge issues in the law and in the D&O marketplace. 

Representative Matters

  • Eisenhandler v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., et al., Case No. CV 09 5031716-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct, 21, 2011), (granting insurer’s summary judgment motion based on the prior knowledge exclusion in a lawyers professional liability policy).  We represented an insurer that denied coverage for a legal malpractice claim based on a prior knowledge exclusion. The court agreed with our client's denial and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
  • Modern Technologies Group Inc., et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., 2010 WL 3908685 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2010), (granting insurer’s motion for summary judgment based on late notice of a claim under a claims-made professional liability policy).  We represented an insurer which obtained an order granting summary judgment in its favor against a limousine parts seller, denying coverage for a claim under a professional liability policy on the basis of late notice.
  • Russoniello v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., 2010 WL 2024084 (D.N.J. May 20, 2010) (granting insurer's motion for summary judgment based on late notice of a claim under a lawyers professional liability policy).  We represented an insurer which obtained an order granting summary judgment in its favor against a solo practitioner, denying coverage for a claim under a lawyers professional liability policy on the basis of late notice. The court held that a letter from the lawyer’s client constituted a claim because it was a demand for money and alleged completely inadequate representation that could be considered malpractice. 
  • Executive Risk Indem. Inc. v. Pepper Hamilton LLP, 2008 WL 6808243 (Trial Order) (N.Y.Sup. Jan 29, 2008), rev'd by 56 A.D.3d 196, 865 N.Y.S.2d 25 (1 Dep't Sep 23, 2008), affirmed as modified by 2009 WL 3347222, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 07453 (N.Y. Oct 20, 2009) (granting insurers' summary judgment motions on prior notice exclusions in a lawyers professional liability policy).  We represented an excess insurer which obtained an order granting summary judgment in its favor against a large law firm, denying coverage for a malpractice claim under a lawyers professional liability policy on the ground of a prior knowledge exclusion.
  • Schwartz v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. et al., 492 F.Supp.2d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) judgment affirmed by 539 F.3d 135 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Aug 19, 2008). (granting primary D&O insurer's post-trial motion to dismiss D&O excess insurers' cross-claims for bad faith). We represented an excess insurer whose denial of coverage under a D&O policy was the subject of a bad faith action tried to a jury and successfully concluded by post-trial motions to set aside the verdict.
  • Indotronix International Corp. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 06 Civ. 2688 (S.D.N.Y. April 30, 2007) (finding after inquest on insured's claim for reimbursement of $520,000 incurred in defense costs and expenses, that only $117,000, after application of $100,000 SIR, were reasonable and necessary and therefore recoverable from D&O insurer).  We represented a D&O insurer that challenged a request by the insured for reimbursement of $520,000 the insured incurred in defense costs and expenses in defending an underlying action.  After an inquest before the court, the court denied the insured’s request for reimbursement of $520,000, finding that, after application of a $100,000 SIR, only $117,000 were “reasonable and necessary” and therefore recoverable from the D&O insurer.
  • CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, et al. 06 CV 324, Order 113 (MD FL October 16, 2006) (granting insurer's motion to dismiss bad faith claim under Florida law because the insured had not first established that coverage was available for the claim in question).
  • Vigilant Insurance Co. v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 10 A.D.3d 528, 782 N.Y.S.2d 19 (App. Div. 1st. Dept. 2004) (affirming trial court and extending ruling to also exclude coverage for defense costs associated with uncovered claim).  We represented a quota share excess insurer in an action arising from denial of coverage on the ground of uninsurability of intentional acts and, alone among the insurers, obtained reversal on appeal of the trial court’s decision ordering payment of defense expenses.  

Events

Publications

Practice Contacts