The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, applying Oklahoma law, has held that a bankruptcy or insolvency exclusion may bar coverage for the insured broker’s claim, where the broker’s actions were connected to the bankruptcy of its client’s former insurer.  C.L. Frates & Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 2013 WL 4734093 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 2013).

Applying Pennsylvania law, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has held that an insured’s failure to notify its insurer of a potential claim violated the notice provision of the policy.  Pelagatti v. Minn. Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3213796 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2013).  In  so doing, the court held that the insurer was not required to show that it was prejudiced by the late notice and that whether the insured’s failure to provide timely notice negates coverage is determined under a “hybrid subjective/objective test.”

Under the Bankruptcy Code, a lawsuit to recover avoidable preference payments must be filed prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Specifically, such lawsuits must be commenced before the later of 1. two years after the commencement of the case or 2. one year after the appointment or election of the first Trustee, provided that the two-year period has not already expired.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has held that an E&O policy issued to a now-bankrupt credit counseling company did not cover claims arising under unfair trade practices statutes, but did cover claims arising under fair debt collection statutes. Hrobuchak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2291875 (M.D. Pa. May 24, 2013). The court also held that carve-outs from the policy’s definition of loss did not preclude coverage for statutory damages or damages representing the return of fees paid to the insured.

Buyers of assets through the bankruptcy court process seek comfort and solace in the entry of a sale order providing for the transfer of assets “free and clear” of all liabilities. Except for those liabilities expressly assumed by the buyer and new owner, the bankruptcy court order typically includes exacting and precise language transferring those assets, under the imprimatur of the United States Bankruptcy Court, free and clear of all liabilities.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has held that an E&O policy issued to a now-bankrupt credit counseling company did not cover claims arising under unfair trade practices statutes, but did cover claims arising under fair debt collection statutes. Hrobuchak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2291875 (M.D. Pa. May 24, 2013). The court also held that carve-outs from the policy’s definition of loss did not preclude coverage for statutory damages or damages representing the return of fees paid to the insured.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, applying Georgia law, has held that a default judgment against an insured in a rescission action precluded any subsequent recovery under the policy by a judgment creditor of the insured. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 2013 WL 1943427 (N.D. Ga. May 9, 2013).

On April 29, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear an appeal of the Second Circuit's decision dismissing, as equitably moot, appeals arising out of the bankruptcy of Charter Communications and let stand the opinion in In re Charter Communications, Inc., 691 F.3d 476 (2d Cir. 2012). As a result, the application of the equitable mootness doctrine, as it applies to bankruptcy appeals, will continue to vary among jurisdictions.

Applying Minnesota law, a federal district court has held that, where an entity’s principal shareholder was insolvent, but the entity was not, the individual’s insolvency could not be attributed to the entity for purposes of establishing Side A coverage for “Non-Indemnifiable Loss.” Zayed v. Arch Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1183952 (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2013). The court further held that allegations of fraudulent inducement did not trigger an exclusion for claims “arising from” contractual liability, but that the claim was uninsurable as matter of law.

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has held that a settlement agreement between the claimant and policyholder satisfies Connecticut’s direct action statute’s requirement regarding the need for an unsatisfied judgment. Tucker v. American International Group, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-1499, 2013 WL 1294476 (D. Conn. Mar. 28, 2013). Accordingly, the court permitted the claimant’s suit against the carrier to proceed.