About This Blog
Summaries and analysis of recent Delaware court decisions concerning business-related litigation.
Morris James Blogs
Showing 36 posts in Business Insurance.
This is an interesting decision for two reasons. First, it settles the choice of law in a coverage case for a nationwide set of claims. The principal place of business for the insured is the law to apply. More ›
This is an important decision because it limits the use of the typical fraud exclusion in a D&O policy to avoid liability to the insured. The insured David Murdoch was found to have breached his fiduciary duty to Dole Foods resulting in a damage opinion awarding over $148,000,000. He soon settled the case by paying the damages and the suit was dismissed prior to the entry of a final judgment. He then sought to be reimbursed by the Dole D&O carriers. The insurers defended on the basis that the policy excluded coverage for litigation over a director’s personal gains obtained by fraud. However, the policy also required that the adjudication of wrongful conduct be reflected in a final judgment. The court held that even though there was a Court of Chancery opinion finding Murdock liable there was no final judgment and thus the exclusion for fraud did not apply. Further, the Court held that the insurers could not be subrogated in a suit against Murdock. While the case is not yet over, this result is probably upsetting to most insurers who do not expect to have to cover their insured’s frauds. But as the Superior Court correctly pointed out, there is precedent for this result. Hence, it can be said the insurers were on notice this might occur. Of course, the answer to this problem is to change the policy wording to not require a final adjudication when a case is settled.
D&O policies often attempt to exclude from coverage sums paid to disgorge unlawful profits. The underlying theory is that the company did not suffer a true loss when it has to give back something that it never should have had in the first place. This decision tackles the hard problem of applying that theory in specific circumstances. The Court held that when a company settles a claim without admitting it has made an unlawful profit then the insurer has to prove the sums paid were in fact a return of an illegal profit. Merely settling a claim for some amount does not establish disgorgement occurred, even when the claim itself may have made that allegation. In particular, when the actual settlement agreement does not refer to a return of an illegal gain, there is no tie to actual disgorgement and the exclusion may not apply. Hence, when settling a claim it is important to consider how the settlement agreement should read.
When is a declaratory judgment case sufficiently ripe that it may be decided? This is a difficult area of the law and this decision provides guidance. At least when the action seeks a declaration of insurance coverage, there probably needs to be an underlying litigation on file before there can be a declaration of coverage for that litigation.
This opinion has a good summary of Delaware law on forum selection clauses, motions to dismiss for improper venue, and stays in favor of another forum.
This decision sets out in one place the standard rules for interpreting an insurance policy, particularly who has the burden of proving an exception to coverage exists and any exceptions to that exception. The decision is also noteworthy for adopting the rule that the exceptions to coverage should not be interpreted to swallow up all the coverage of the policy.
This decision holds that insurance in the form of an indemnity bond or a D&O policy may cover losses suffered as a result of the Madoff fraud. The application of a bond to such claims may surprise some as Madoff was not an employee whose dishonesty was the cause of the loss. However, as the Court notes, the bond at issue was written very broadly and may well cover dishonesty of such third persons.
In this decision, the Superior Court ruled sua sponte that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an action seeking declaratory relief and requesting the appointment of an arbitrator. The court held that under 10 Del. C. § 5704 the Court of Chancery has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator when the parties’ agreed upon method of appointment fails for any reason.
Kempski v. Toll Bros., Inc., 2008 WL 4642633 (D. Del. Oct. 21, 2008)
In this opinion, the District Court reinforced Delaware’s law that indemnity provisions that require one party to indemnify another party for the second party’s own negligence are void as against Delaware’s public policy. Here the Defendant, Toll Brothers, Inc., contracted with Delaware Heating and Air Conditioning Services, Inc. (“DHAC”), to perform HVAC work on Defendant’s housing developments. One of DHAC’s employees was injured while performing the work, and sued Defendant. Defendant sought indemnification from DHAC pursuant to their contract. Both Defendant and DHAC sought summary judgment on the indemnification claim. The Court found that under Delaware law, the contractual indemnification provision that Defendant sought to invoke was against Delaware public policy, and granted summary judgment for DHAC. More ›
When one company acquires several other companies, which carry their own D&O liability coverage, the resulting entity then holds multiple towers of coverage.
Here, the company held multiple towers of coverage and sought reimbursement for the defense costs it was advancing to certain of its officers and directors who were prosecuted in a criminal case. The issue that arose on summary judgment was whether the court had to allocate the defense costs across the multiple towers, while the criminal case was ongoing.
Since none of the contracts required such an allocation, the court held that the insured company could elect to collect payments in advance from any tower and that the court would not mandate allocation at this stage. The court left open the possibility that allocation could be required at a future time, presumably upon final disposition of the case.
This coverage dispute arises out of the settlement of an underlying breach of fiduciary duty action. The plaintiffs and defendants (insureds) in that underlying action, along with the first-layer D&O carrier, reached a settlement agreement without the consent of the excess liability carrier, despite the settlement implicating that policy.
The excess liability carrier objected to the settlement arrangement and refused to consent. The plaintiffs informed the insureds that it would not seek to recover any part of the judgment from them if they agreed to the settlement, despite the excess liability carrier’s lack of consent. More ›
This decision will be of interest to any parties drafting or negotiating D&O policy exclusions.
This coverage dispute arose out of stockholder litigation brought against certain AT&T directors, alleging false and misleading statements. That action settled during trial, with AT&T agreeing to pay $100 million to the plaintiffs. National Union, AT&T’s excess D&O carrier, denied coverage.
The issue before the Superior Court here, on AT&T’s motion for partial summary judgment, was whether National Union could deny coverage based on the policy’s fraud exclusion. AT&T argued that the fraud exclusion requires an adjudication and does not apply to settlements. More ›
This case is an insurance coverage dispute between Tyson Foods, Inc., and certain of its underwriters over damages caused by Hurricane Katrina. The underwriters filed two declaratory judgment actions in Delaware seeking denial of coverage. Two weeks later Tyson filed an action in Mississippi. Tyson then moved to dismiss or stay the Delaware action.
The Superior Court found that the underwriters’ Delaware action was first filed. The court then applied the Cryo-Maid factors to determine if the Delaware action should nonetheless be dismissed or stayed on forum non conveniens grounds. The court considered (1) whether Delaware law governs the case; (2) the relative ease of access to proof; (3) the availability of compulsory process for witnesses; (4) the possibility of a view of the premises; (5) the pendency or nonpendency of a similar action or actions in another jurisdiction; and (6) all other practical considerations that would affect the trial. More ›
District Court Finds No Ambiguity or Third Party Beneficiary Status, Grants Motion for Summary Judgment
In this opinion the District Court resolved cross-motions for summary judgment on the defendant’s counterclaim for breach of contract. The relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant arose out of the underwriting of student loans. Student Finance Corporation (“SFC”) underwrote loans to students using funds from banks, then allegedly fraudulently issued “forbearance payments” in order to hide delinquent and defaulting loans. SFC transferred the loans to several trusts, which then issued fixed income notes, called Certificates, to investors. Plaintiff #1 was the trustee of trusts holding the securitized student loans. Defendant insured the loans that backed the Certificates with insurance policies that unconditionally guaranteed the students’ repayment of principal plus 90 days interest. Plaintiff #2 guaranteed payment of the Certificates in the event that the Defendant failed to honor its policies on the loans. Plaintiffs sued Defendant seeking to enforce its unconditional guarantee to repay the loans. Defendant counterclaimed against Plaintiff #1 for breach of contract, arguing that Plaintiff #1 did not adequately fulfill its oversight responsibilities under applicable Pool Servicing Agreements (“PSAs”) with respect to the servicing of the loans, and thus did not discover the allegedly fraudulent forebearance payments, resulting in Defendant engaging in continual transactions with SFC. Plaintiffs’ claim for enforcement of Defendant’s guarantee obligation was settled, leaving the Court only Defendant’s counterclaim to resolve. More ›
In this action for declaratory judgment, Plaintiff sought a ruling that it was not liable to various Defendants for the clean-up costs associated with environmental contamination on a property Plaintiff formerly owned. Plaintiff sold the contaminated property to Defendant 1 pursuant to an acquisition agreement that provided for a 12 year indemnification for certain environmental liabilities. Defendant 1 then sold the property to Defendant 2 with a separate indemnification agreement. Defendant 3 later acquired Defendant 2 and its subsidiary. When Defendant 3 sought to sell the contaminated property, the contamination was detected. Defendant 3 sought indemnification from Defendant 1, which then sought indemnification from Plaintiff. Plaintiff rejected the indemnification demand under the argument that it was outside the scope of the acquisition agreement, and sought declaratory judgment that it was not liable to any of the Defendants. Defendant 3, a Canadian corporation, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. More ›