Corporate deal lawyers had for many decades designed corporate acquisitions and divestitures on the long-held foundation that historical rights to insurance proceeds were freely assignable, and that the rights to the proceeds of liability insurance could freely follow the liabilities. The design of those deals was called into question in 2003 in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity, (Cal. 2003), which severely impeded companies involved in such transactions by enforcing consent-to-assign clauses even though policy periods had expired and the right to insurance already had accrued. In 2015, California reversed course and restored the ability of corporations to freely assign the rights available under insurance policies after a loss. Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, (Cal. 2015).
Mitigation of Risk and Transfer of Insurance Rights in a Corporate Restructuring. The reversal to return to the majority rule in California will have a pro-business impact, given the current pace of mergers and acquisitions. Such activity, essential to the efficient functioning of a modern economy, depends on the ability to assign insurance assets, or the ability to assign the inchoate “chose in action” (the as-yet undeveloped potential claim) under a liability insurance policy.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
