A Pennsylvania appellate court has affirmed the liquidator’s determination that a group excess insurance policy issued by Reliance is a reinsurance policy and thereby entitled to a low level of priority of payment from the now insolvent Reliance estate. At issue was a claim by the Alabama Insurance Guaranty Association for reimbursement from the estate for a claim it had paid to a general contractors fund.
Fourteen former MF Global executives, including Jon Corzine, the former chairman and chief executive officer, are entitled to access most of a US $200 million directors and officers liability insurance policy purchased by MF Global Holdings prior to the firm filing for bankruptcy in October 2011, under the decision of a US bankruptcy court in NYC last week. The executives had previously made a motion to access the insurance.
A recent pair of opinions from New York and Pennsylvania shows the importance of evaluating all parts of director and officer (D&O) insurance coverage, down to each definition. These cases, one holding for the insured and one for the insurer, demonstrate that a policy’s terms can be absolutely critical if the insured seeks indemnification for defense costs.
Banks, insurance brokers, and other agents can breathe a sigh of relief as the Fourth Circuit enabled the “mere conduit” defense to survive another day. The Fourth Circuit has long recognized the proposition that an avoidable transfer cannot be recovered, pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, from a transferee who acted as a “mere conduit” for another party having the direct business relationship with the debtor.
Liability insurance policies typically exclude coverage for obligations arising out of the insured’s “assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.” Earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court took a narrow view of this exclusion: in the landmark decision in Ewing Construction Co. v. Amerisure Insurance Co., 420 S.W.3d 30 (Tex.
Why it matters
Malone v. Allstate Indemnity Co.,No. 2:13–CV–00884–WMA, WL 2592352 (N.D. Al. Jun. 10, 2014)
The Northern District of Alabama finds that an insurer did not act in bad faith by denying coverage for damage caused by a house fire where investigators suspected arson, the insured made misrepresentations in bankruptcy filings, and the insurer received an uncontradicted coverage opinion from an attorney.
Sadly, sometimes tragedy strikes, as it did for the Montreal Maine & Atlantic Railway Ltd. in July, 2013, when one of its trains carrying crude oil derailed and exploded, resulting in 47 deaths, significant property and environmental damage, and the bankruptcy of the Railway. The Railway had a business interruption insurance policy, a settlement was reached with the insurer and the question of who was entitled to the multi-million-dollar settlement arose in the bankruptcy. In re Montreal Maine & Atlantic Ltd., 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 1628. 59 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 101 (Bankr. D.
Why it matters