Howard B Epstein

November 02, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their Corporate Insurance Law column, Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes of Schulte Roth & Zabel discuss how the determination of whether particular claims are potentially covered is not always clear at the onset of a litigation, and how three recent cases have yielded opposing conclusions.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

12 minute read

November 03, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that based on its plain language, the prior knowledge exclusion applies only where the insured has a reasonable belief that claims will be filed against it. In a recent ruling, the First Department makes clear that if the insured professional has not engaged in wrongful conduct, it need not disclose the wrongful conduct of its client.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

10 minute read

March 30, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In their Corporate Insurance Law column, Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, analyze a recent Court of Appleas decision held that the duty to defend owed by a general liability carrier required the GL carrier to defend the insured against all claims in the underlying lawsuit, even where many of the claims in the lawsuit were potentially covered under a directors' and officers' policy issued by another insurer and only one of the claims was potentially covered by the GL policy.

By Howard B. Epstein And Theodore A. Keyes

10 minute read

November 05, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, examine situations which pose potential liabilities for directors and officers of the subject corporations. In each case, the directors and officers might be able to look to D&O insurance to pay legal fees and potentially any related judgment. However, whether a claim is covered will depend on the terms and conditions of the D&O policy.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

12 minute read

January 04, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that the rules of law concerning many pivotal insurance issues vary from state to state, including insurability of punitive damages, interpretation of the pollution exclusion and allocation of loss for continuous injuries. Recently, two New York courts addressed conflict-of-laws questions in which the insured risk was located in multiple states.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

9 minute read

June 30, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In their Corporate Insurance Law column, Schulte Roth & Zabel's Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes write: On Jan. 9, 1928, Judge Augustus Hand, then sitting on the Second Circuit, called it as he saw it in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., and to this day courts across the nation have followed and continue to follow this seminal decision on triggering excess insurance. In the last few years, however, several courts have taken the time to reexamine Zeig.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

13 minute read

November 29, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel. and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, ask: What happens when an insurer seeks discovery of communications between the insured and its counsel in order to demonstrate that the insured had knowledge of a claim or occurrence long before it provided notice?

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

12 minute read

March 16, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that when a corporation is under siege, D&O insurance may be the only source, aside from their personal bank accounts, from which directors and officers can pay their legal fees. But too often, directors and officers wait until after the investigation starts to examine the terms of their D&O policy. At that point, there is little that can be done if the terms are not favorable.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

10 minute read