Regulatory: Understanding your D&O insurance policy
Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance offers vital protection to a company and to its directors and officers against financial claims and liabilities. D&O insurance is unlike other liability insurance in several important respects. First, it generally provides coverage for both the company and its officers and directors, despite the fact...
March 07, 2012 at 05:15 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance offers vital protection to a company and to its directors and officers against financial claims and liabilities. D&O insurance is unlike other liability insurance in several important respects. First, it generally provides coverage for both the company and its officers and directors, despite the fact that the interests of the insureds often diverge. This aspect of D&O insurance stresses the importance of understanding the basics of a D&O policy.
Although there are a number of variations, a D&O policy typically has three basic insuring agreements, often referred to as Side A, Side B and Side C. Side A covers losses incurred by individual directors and officers for which the company has not provided indemnification. Side B covers losses incurred by the company in indemnifying its officers or directors. Side C covers losses incurred by the company as a result of securities claims made directly against the company.
It is not uncommon for a D&O policy to provide a single limit of liability that is shared among all three insuring agreements and among all insureds. In the event of a claim against both the company and its directors or officers, a single limit policy frequently results in a conflict of interest between the company and its directors and officers as to the allocation of the insurance coverage. Because of this inherent conflict, the following provisions of a D&O policy should be carefully reviewed.
- Priority of Payment. Particularly with single limit D&O coverage, the policy should specify how the insurance proceeds will be prioritized among the various insured parties. D&O policies commonly contain a priority of payment provision that requires claims against the individual directors and officers be satisfied before claims against the company.
- Misconduct Exclusion. D&O policies typically contain exclusions that bar coverage for misconduct on the part of an insured. The misconduct excluded from coverage generally includes intentional dishonesty, fraud, criminal conduct and willful violations of law. In negotiating coverage, it is advisable to limit the exclusion of coverage to the individual director or officer who committed the misconduct while maintaining coverage for innocent insureds.
- Rescission. If an insurer discovers that the application for D&O coverage contained a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact, the insurer may seek to rescind the policy. A rescission would result in a loss of coverage for the company and all insureds, including innocent directors or officers. Most D&O policies contain some form of severability provision in which the knowledge of one insured is not necessarily imputed to the other insureds. A severability provision may provide, for example, that no insured person's knowledge will be imputed to any other insured or to the company. Some D&O policies take a more direct approach and provide that the policy cannot be rescinded for any reason.
- Insured vs. Insured Exclusion. D&O policies often exclude from coverage a claim brought by one insured against another. The insured vs. insured exclusion may, for example, exclude a claim brought by the company against one or more of its directors or officers, or a claim brought by a director or officer against the company. As with all exclusions from coverage, any insured vs. insured exclusion should be carefully reviewed and thoroughly understood.
Particularly in the post-Sarbanes-Oxley era, D&O insurance provides important protection to companies and to the individuals who serve as directors or officers. A basic understanding of the structure and unique exclusions in a typical D&O policy will help maximize coverage and minimize surprises.
Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance offers vital protection to a company and to its directors and officers against financial claims and liabilities. D&O insurance is unlike other liability insurance in several important respects. First, it generally provides coverage for both the company and its officers and directors, despite the fact that the interests of the insureds often diverge. This aspect of D&O insurance stresses the importance of understanding the basics of a D&O policy.
Although there are a number of variations, a D&O policy typically has three basic insuring agreements, often referred to as Side A, Side B and Side C. Side A covers losses incurred by individual directors and officers for which the company has not provided indemnification. Side B covers losses incurred by the company in indemnifying its officers or directors. Side C covers losses incurred by the company as a result of securities claims made directly against the company.
It is not uncommon for a D&O policy to provide a single limit of liability that is shared among all three insuring agreements and among all insureds. In the event of a claim against both the company and its directors or officers, a single limit policy frequently results in a conflict of interest between the company and its directors and officers as to the allocation of the insurance coverage. Because of this inherent conflict, the following provisions of a D&O policy should be carefully reviewed.
- Priority of Payment. Particularly with single limit D&O coverage, the policy should specify how the insurance proceeds will be prioritized among the various insured parties. D&O policies commonly contain a priority of payment provision that requires claims against the individual directors and officers be satisfied before claims against the company.
- Misconduct Exclusion. D&O policies typically contain exclusions that bar coverage for misconduct on the part of an insured. The misconduct excluded from coverage generally includes intentional dishonesty, fraud, criminal conduct and willful violations of law. In negotiating coverage, it is advisable to limit the exclusion of coverage to the individual director or officer who committed the misconduct while maintaining coverage for innocent insureds.
- Rescission. If an insurer discovers that the application for D&O coverage contained a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact, the insurer may seek to rescind the policy. A rescission would result in a loss of coverage for the company and all insureds, including innocent directors or officers. Most D&O policies contain some form of severability provision in which the knowledge of one insured is not necessarily imputed to the other insureds. A severability provision may provide, for example, that no insured person's knowledge will be imputed to any other insured or to the company. Some D&O policies take a more direct approach and provide that the policy cannot be rescinded for any reason.
- Insured vs. Insured Exclusion. D&O policies often exclude from coverage a claim brought by one insured against another. The insured vs. insured exclusion may, for example, exclude a claim brought by the company against one or more of its directors or officers, or a claim brought by a director or officer against the company. As with all exclusions from coverage, any insured vs. insured exclusion should be carefully reviewed and thoroughly understood.
Particularly in the post-Sarbanes-Oxley era, D&O insurance provides important protection to companies and to the individuals who serve as directors or officers. A basic understanding of the structure and unique exclusions in a typical D&O policy will help maximize coverage and minimize surprises.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250