Lessons For D&O Policyholders From Pharma Co. Ruling – Craig Hirsch, Tae Andrews & Stephen Wah Author Law360 Article

Providers of Directors and Officers insurance often argue their duty to advance defense costs depends on whether a claim against an insured is actually covered.  The insurers claim that the long-standing principle that an insurer's “duty to defend” is much broader than its “duty to indemnify,” requiring a defense of an insured if a claim is even potentially covered, is inapplicable to standard D&O policies.  But the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently refuted that limited interpretation.

In their Law360 article, Partner Craig Hirsch, Counsel Tae Andrews and Managing Associate Stephen Wah examine the District Court’s ruling in AmTrust International Underwriters DAC v. 180 Life Sciences Corp. and how it provides a useful roadmap for policyholders disputing their D&O insurers’ refusal to advance defense costs.

Read the article here. (Subscription required)