Insights
Publications

Directors & Officers Liability Issues and the Coronavirus: Is That a “Thing”?

March 18, 2020 Blog

Over the last few weeks we have seen a number of informative articles discussing the crucial issue of coverage for business interruption claims arising out of government shutdowns of businesses to inhibit the spread of COVID-19, here. As the economic disruption from these efforts continues, however, we are likely to see impacts in the Directors & Officers Liability market - not only from claims that trigger D&O policies, but also additional challenges in placements and renewals of D&O programs.

Insurance Placement

To state the obvious, the D&O market was extremely tough even before the financial markets took a tumble this year. Premiums and retentions were up—sometimes by multiples—and some sectors had difficulty purchasing adequate coverage at any price. In placing or renewing coverage, both private and public D&O insurers may even more carefully scrutinize certain sectors, as well as their insureds’ current financials and future prospects. And on the other hand, independent directors may demand greater D&O protection as a condition of service on the board of a company whose operations are potentially impacted by the pandemic.

Companies should take particular care to provide accurate responses to questions posed or information requested by the insureds in the placement process. Otherwise, they might be vulnerable to a rescission defense if the information is later determined to be materially false. Companies should also review their program structure to ensure that independents directors are protected by stand-alone Side A coverage in the event of a covered loss that cannot be indemnified by the company. Such losses include insolvency events and derivative actions, both of which may become more frequent in the coming months.

Insurers may add exclusions to limit their exposure to COVID-19-related risks, particularly in vulnerable sectors. Such exclusions could include broader bodily injury exclusions or even exclusions for any losses arising from the financial impact of a pandemic.

Claims

As of the date of this post, two securities class actions have been filed against companies that allegedly made false disclosures relating to COVID-19 events: a cruise line company that allegedly failed to fully disclose the effects of the virus on its business, and a pharma company that allegedly made a false claim that it had developed a COVID-19 vaccine.

We may see similar disclosure suits as the stock market remains in flux and companies struggle to accurately assess and disclose the impact of the virus and the government response on their financial health. We may also see “event-driven” derivative claims as the plaintiffs’ bar develops new theories of liability against directors and officers for failing to manage their response to the virus, supply chain risks or privacy breaches. Officers and directors may be more vulnerable to insider trading claims as stock prices fall. If companies do not survive the crisis, shareholders and creditors may pursue such claims in bankruptcy courts, with the directors and officers (and ultimately, their insurance) as the only remaining viable targets.

Generally, these securities and derivative claims should not present unique coverage issues beyond those normally raised by insurers in response to securities or derivative litigation actions. Some policyholders may be surprised, however, when their insurer raises the “bodily injury” or “personal injury” (privacy) exclusion as a defense to coverage. If this happens, policyholders may learn to their chagrin that the exclusion in their policy does not meet market standards. Such an exclusion should include a carve-back exception for securities claims arising out of bodily injury or personal injury risks. It also should be limited to exclude only claims “for” bodily injury or personal injury, as opposed to the broader “arising out of or related to” those risks. Even if the broader exclusion is used, coverage counsel still should be able to develop arguments to eliminate or limit the impact of that exclusion.

People and businesses face many risks and uncertainties in the coming months. D&O insurance exists to mitigate and protect against the risks and uncertainties of impacts on a company’s financial health, whatever the source. Companies and their directors and officers should expect no less of their D&O insurers if the financial impact of COVID-19 or a related government action leads to a shareholder or derivative claim.

Firm Highlights

Publication

BIPA Liability: Existing CGL Coverage May Provide a Lifeline for Policyholders

Developments in the law have increased the potential liability that companies could face under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), but fortunately for policyholders, Illinois case law has also solidified coverage for BIPA...

Read More
Publication

Reporting Dispute Claims Within Closely Held Wineries

Many wineries operate as closely held companies, meaning they’re owned by an individual or small group of shareholders, who are often members of the same family. Disputes regarding ownership interests can arise, particularly when directors...

Read More
Publication

Disputes Between Shareholders May Not Be Governed by Fiduciary Duties but Could Be Covered by Insurance

(As published in Private Company Director ) Disputes regarding ownership interests often arise in the context of closely held corporations, particularly when directors, officers, or majority shareholders sell or acquire ownership interests in the...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
Publication

Insurance Market Crushes Wineries and Wine Country Homeowners

We keep hearing about how difficult it is for winery and vineyard owners to get property insurance these days, both for their homes and their wine businesses in California’s wildfire-prone areas. Those who have...

Read More
Publication

When Can an Insurer Pursue a Malpractice Claim Against Defense Counsel Retained for an Insured? (Part One)

By Jalen M. Brown, Kristin Davis, Shanti Eagle, PeterJ. Georgiton, and John Mark Hart When an insurer accepts an insured’s tender and agrees to provide a defense, it is often an afterthought as to whether...

Read More
Publication

When Can an Insurer Pursue a Malpractice Claim Against Defense Counsel Retained for an Insured? (Part Two)

By Jalen M. Brown, Kristin Davis, Shanti Eagle, Peter J. Georgiton, and J. Mark Hart Part 1 of our two-part article addressed the circumstances in which an insurer can directly pursue malpractice claims against...

Read More
Publication

Regulatory Changes Underway To Address Dwindling California Property Insurance Market

We keep hearing about how difficult it is for our clients to get property insurance these days, both for homes and businesses in Northern California’s wildfire-prone areas. Which, of course, is most of Northern...

Read More