The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion barred coverage under primary and excess directors and officers (D&O) policies for the Wrongful Acts of the principals of a bankrupt company, all of whom were criminally convicted of securities fraud and related crimes.  The Unencumbered Assets Trust v. Great American Insurance Co., et. al., 2011 WL 4348128 (S.D. Ohio Sept.

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas, applying Kansas law, has held that a D&O policy issued to a bank was not automatically canceled or terminated when the FDIC was appointed as the bank’s receiver but that coverage under the policy ceased. Columbian Fin. Corp. v. BancInsure, Inc., 2009 WL 4508576 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2009). The court concluded that although coverage ceased upon the appointment of the FDIC as receiver, the insureds could report claims at any time prior to the expiration of the policy.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the Johns-Manville bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to enjoin direct action claims asserted against Travelers entities that are predicted on an independent duty owed by Travelers, that do not claim against the res of the Manville estate, and that seek damages unrelated to and in excess of Manville's insurance proceeds. Johns-Manville Corp. v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co., --- F.3d ---, 2008 WL 399010 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2008).

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.

An Illinois appellate court, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy exclusion nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.  Yessenow v. Exec. Risk Indem., Inc., 2011 WL 2623307 (Ill. App. Ct. June 30, 2011).

The United States District Court for the Central District of California, applying California law, has granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer because a lawsuit against the insured actuarial services firm was a claim "arising out of the insolvency" of the insured's client and therefore was barred by the policy's insolvency exclusion. Zurich Global Corp. U.K. v. Bickerstaff, Whatley, Ryan & Burkhalter, Inc., 2009 WL 2827969 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2009).

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has abstained from hearing a dispute between a primary and an excess professional liability insurer related to a bankruptcy settlement based on the mandatory abstention doctrine. Royal Indemn. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., Inc., 2007 WL 4171649 (D.N.J. Nov. 19, 2007). After the insured corporation declared bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee settled claims with the insured's primary professional liability insurer.

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 Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.  According to the court, the bankruptcy exclusion is unenforceable because coverage arises from a policy that is a property interest of the debtors, and that property interest is protected under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The insured versus insured exclusion did not apply, the court held, because the policyholder and a court-appointe

A federal district court in Delaware, applying New York law, has affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an adversary proceeding brought by a bankrupt home mortgage company against its directors and officers liability insurers, holding that coverage for a pre-petition lawsuit against the mortgage company was barred by application of an “inadequate consideration” exclusion.Delta Fin. Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2392882 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2009).