Insurers V. Insured Exclusions Relating to Litigation Lead by Insurers – Law and Insurance Products – United States

To print this article, all you need to do is register or sign in to

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, applying Kentucky law, has held that an insurance v. insurance prevents coverage for a lawsuit brought by the insured and non-insured as well as a non-collateral person. , non-insurance companies. Gregory v. Navigators Ins. Co.No. 2022 WL 17551995 (SDNY Dec. 9, 2022). The court found that it was not possible to use an action against the alienation because the insurance side received substantial assistance in the presentation of the case. against Directors and Officers of the company.

Directors and officers of a Kentucky agricultural company were sued in an action involving claims by policyholders—some of whom were insured—as well as an uninsured, uninsured entity. security holder. The insurance of the directors and officers of the company does not include coverage for “Loss, including Costs( )of Defense, in connection with any Claim made against any Insured… by or as a representative of any Insurer or any holder of securities of the Company” (the “insurance vs. insurance exclusion”). However, the policy provided that such indemnity does not apply to “any Claim . . . brought by a stockholder of the Company, whether directly or indirectly, if the stockholder who brings such a Claim acting independently, and without the direction, assistance, active participation or interference of, the Company or any Insured Person” (the “assistant exception”). One of the company’s officers sought insurance coverage for the claim, but the insurance company denied it because it was not covered. The trial was next.

The court accepted the insurer’s request to cancel, and confirmed that the insured v. the exclusion of the requested insurance because some of the plaintiffs are insured and/or security holders. It also concluded that the subsidiary exception did not apply because this was not a case in which a stockholder was involved in a large suit. Instead, the court emphasized that the claim was “brought forward” by an insured.

The court also rejected an argument that the part of the claim brought by the company should be non-securities, non-insurance. depending on the section of the document being submitted. It was held that the claims brought by the insured and others still fell within the provisions of insurance v. exclusion insurance and the exemption aid, rather than the provision, controls whether the exclusion was affected. The court concluded that the portion of the share is only relevant if it was not used in the first place.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject. Specific advice should be sought regarding your particular circumstances.

BEST BOOKING: Insurance from the United States

Insurtech Innovation In The Metaverse

Goodwin Procter LLP

The metaverse will offer new forms of immersive entertainment, ways of social interaction, and opportunities for collaboration. It is also expected to generate more wealth.

Leave a Comment