Insights
Publications

Insurance in a Time of Crisis: Role of Insurance Counsel in Crisis Management

10/18/2018 Blog

I recently participated in a panel at the Association of Business Trial Lawyers Annual Meeting – “Bad News Delivered: The Board Meeting and Crisis Management.” Among other topics, the panel discussed the role of insurance counsel in crisis management, and addressed the following questions:

Who Is The Client?

When meeting with a board in a time of crisis, it is critical to identify whether your client is the company or the board. And if it is the company, the board must understand that while they are the decision-makers for your client, they themselves are not your clients.

Depending on whom you represent, your advice and strategy may differ. Although acting on behalf of the company and bound by fiduciary duties and the duty of loyalty, in a time of crisis board members may be concerned about how the company’s insurance can be used to protect their interests, as opposed to the company’s. If counsel is representing the company, the strategy may focus on preserving the coverage to settle a nasty case, fund burdensome defense or investigation costs, or protect individuals who are critical to the company’s on-going business strategies. And if the company is in bankruptcy, the debtor in possession or trustee may want to preserve the assets for claims against the estate, as opposed to lower priority indemnity claims or non-indemnifiable claims against individual insureds such as board members.

If counsel is representing an individual, he or she may have the luxury of an indemnification from the company – assuming the company is able to fulfill it. If not, counsel may need to invoke Side A or other provisions in the policy to preserve the policy limits for the individual directors or officers, and access to much-needed defense costs.

Read the full blog post on the Policyholder Perspective blog, here.

Firm Highlights

Publication

California Supreme Court Ruling Clarifies That the Notice-Prejudice Rule Is a Fundamental Public Policy That May Override Choice of Law Provisions

In  Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company , the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule [1]  is a fundamental public policy...

Read More
Event

EPLI Policies in Employment Litigation

Shanti Eagle is the moderator for this BASF Labor and Employment Section program, "EPLI Policies in Employment Litigation." This program will provide an overview of using Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) policies in employment...

Read More
Publication

Reimbursement of Employment-Related Expenses Is Not a “Wage and Hour” Claim Within the Meaning of EPLI Exclusion

A recent California appellate court decision found that a wage and hour exclusion in an Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) policy did not bar coverage for claims under California Labor Code sections 2800 and...

Read More
Publication

The 10th Circuit Correctly Construes “That Particular Part” Narrowly

We do not often write about coverage opinions from jurisdictions as far away as Oklahoma; however, a recent case from the Federal Tenth Circuit looked at one of our favorite topics and came out...

Read More
Publication

“That Particular Part” – Yet More

Massachusetts Appeals Court Gets It Right – Mostly Hot on the heels of the Federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in MTI, Inc. v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau , __ F.3d __...

Read More
Publication

3 Lessons For Calif. Insureds From Late-Notice Rule Decision

In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company ,[1] the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule[2] is a fundamental public policy of...

Read More
Publication

Insurance for the Cannabis Industry Program Takeaways

I recently moderated a Bar Association of San Francisco Insurance Section program co-sponsored with the Cannabis Law Section. The program highlighted recent changes to local insurance requirements and market availability of coverage for cannabis...

Read More
Publication

Damages for Permit Revocation Constitute Covered “Loss of Use”

Insurers often claim “economic damages” are not covered under a standard commercial general liability (CGL) policy.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 28 Cal. App...

Read More
News

Farella Adds Technology Industry Group Depth

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020

Read More