• No results found

How To Get Out Of A Liability Claim For A Wrongful Act By An Insurance Company

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "How To Get Out Of A Liability Claim For A Wrongful Act By An Insurance Company"

Copied!
5
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Three Courts Look At Interrelated Wrongful Acts

By: Robert S. Fraser and Gavin J. Curley

Three cases decided this year in three different jurisdictions focus on the critical coverage determination of whether claims filed during a policy period were excluded from coverage because they were related to claims filed prior to that policy period. Two of the cases found that wrongful acts were interrelated where the issue was whether coverage was provided under a renewal tower or by implication to the prior tower. The third case found there was a fact question as to whether the relationships were sufficiently substantial to determine at the pleading stage that the claims were related.

In SP Syntax LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., CV2011-019071 (Ariz. Sup. Ct. Maricopa Cnty June 28, 2012), the question presented was whether a specific event exclusion, contained in the primary and first two excess policies, and/or the standard prior notice exclusion, contained in two excess Side A policies, applied to preclude coverage for cases filed in the 2007-2008 policy year because of an earlier securities case reported during the immediately preceding 2006-2007 policy year. With respect to the standard prior notice exclusion, the court held that the language raised a question of fact requiring extrinsic evidence and denied the motion of the Side A carriers. However, the Court found that because of its broad interrelated acts language, the specific event exclusion applied to preclude under the 2007-2008 policy year and granted the motion of the primary and first two excess carriers.

In November, 2007, equity investors in Syntax-Brillian Corporation (“SBC”) filed the Tsirekidze action against SBC and certain of its directors and officers (“D&Os”) alleging the defendants “misrepresented SBC’s financial condition to induce plaintiffs’ equity investment in SBC.” The D&Os submitted the Tsirekidze action for coverage under the 2006-2007 policies in effect at that time. In 2008 during the pendency of the 2007-2008 policies, SP Syntax LLC filed a lawsuit against certain D&Os in connection with a credit facility agreement (‘CFA’) of SBC for a $150 million term loan and a $100 million revolving loan (the “Silver Point Action”). The basis of the Silver Point Action was alleged fraudulent statements in the procurement of the loans, including the financial statements that were the subject of the Tsirekidze action. The 2007-2008 carriers denied coverage under the 2007-2008 policy year on the basis that the Silver Point Action was related to the Tsirekidze action. Subsequently, the D&Os settled with the plaintiffs on a non-recourse basis and assigned their rights against the 2007-2008 carriers to the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit against the insured.

The 2007-2008 primary policy issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., contained a standard prior notice provision which said “[t]he Insurer shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in connection with any Claim made against an Insured … alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to the facts alleged, or to the same or related Wrongful Acts alleged or contained in any Claim which has been reported, or in any circumstances of which notice has been given, under any policy of which this policy is a renewal or replacement or which it may succeed in time.” The 2007-2008 primary policy also contained a specific event exclusion that applied to claims “alleging, arising out of, based upon, attributable to or in any way related directly or indirectly, in part or in whole to an Interrelated Wrongful Act … regardless of whether or not such Claim involved the same or different Insureds, the same or different legal causes of action or the same or different claimants or is brought in the same or different venue or resolved in the same of different forum.” The endorsement defined an Interrelated Wrongful Act as “… any fact, circumstance, act or omission alleged in …” or “any Wrongful Act which is the same as, similar or related to or a repetition of any Wrongful Act alleged in …” the Tsirekidze action. The endorsement also broadly excluded coverage for loss in connection with restatements or revisions of the insured’s to SEC filings.

(2)

The Court determined that the plaintiff in the Silver Point Action “pled these wrongful acts … as being part of a ‘wrongful course of conduct.’” Judge J. Richard Gama continued, “[w]rongful acts are the same or at least related if they are tied together by a course of conduct aimed at a single particular goal.” Upon finding this connection between the Silver Point Action and the Tsirekidze action, he found that coverage was excluded under the specific event exclusion which was contained only in the National Union primary policy and the first and second excess policies.

The Side A/DIC policies did not contain the specific event endorsement found in the primary policy which made reference to the Tsirekidze action, but rather contained only a standard prior notice exclusion. The Court however indicated that the plaintiffs and the Side A/DIC carriers were free to argue the issue of whether these policies should drop down on a motion for summary judgment after discovery. The principal differences in the two exclusions was the reference in the standard exclusion to the facts alleged in the prior claim whereas the specific event exclusion referred to “in whole or in part” and “any fact, circumstance, act or omission” or any Wrongful Act.

XL Specialty Insurance Co. v. Michael Perry, 11-cv-2078 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2012) involved an action for a declaratory judgment brought by the carriers against former officers and directors of IndyMac Bank (“IndyMac”), which was in receivership and/or its holding company, IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (“Bancorp”), which was in bankruptcy. At issue was coverage for ten lawsuits and matters (the “Underlying Actions”) under a 2008-2009 tower of insurance with eight $10 million layers. The Underlying Actions generally concerned IndyMac’s failure to follow underwriting standards in making loans, and one lawsuit contains allegations of breach of corporate fiduciary duties in connection with the downstreaming of funds from Bancorp to IndyMac. The policies at issue contained limitations on interrelated wrongful acts, prior notice exclusions, and exclusions for the acts alleged in the Tripp litigation, which had been noticed to the carriers prior to the 2008-2009 policy year. Defendants argued that these provisions were ambiguous and, therefore, should not be the basis for denying coverage.

Judge R. Gary Klausner found no ambiguity in the following clauses and granted the insurers’ motions for summary judgment on the basis that one or more of the following exclusions precluded coverage for each of the Underlying Actions:

Interrelated Wrongful Act Limitation

“wrongful acts which have as a common nexus any fact, circumstance, situation, event, transaction or series of facts, circumstances, situations, events or transactions” and

“any wrongful act based on, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from, in consequence of, or in any way involving any of the same or related, or series of related, facts, circumstances, situations, transactions, or events.”

Prior Notice Exclusions

“any payment in connection with a claim based upon [sic] arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from or in consequence of, or in any way involving: 1) any wrongful act or any fact, circumstance or situation which was been the subject of any notice given prior to the policy period ….” and

“based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from, in consequence of, or in any way involving any fact, circumstance or

(3)

Tripp Litigation Exclusion

“no coverage shall be available under this policy for any claim based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from or in consequence of, or in any way involving the following: 1) the [Tripp Litigation]; or 2) any fact, circumstance, situation, event, transaction or series of facts, circumstances, situations, events or transactions underlying or alleged in the Tripp Litigation, regardless of any legal theory upon which such claim is predicated.”

As in the case of the specific exclusion in SP Syntax, these provisions referred to any wrongful act or any fact, circumstance situation or event.

Judge Klausner described the Tripp litigation as “a class action securities lawsuit alleging that IndyMac ignored its own underwriting standards when originating loans, issued a substantial number of high risk loans in order to increase IndyMac’s loan volume, quickly sold these high risk loans-either outright or through securitization transactions-and falsely portrayed the financial stability and health of IndyMac though SEC filings.” The judge then gave the following reasons for excluding the following of the Underlying Actions from coverage

-1. FDIC Demand and FDIC Litigation – the FDIC had issued a letter indicating

its intent to file a lawsuit against IndyMac’s officers and directors for issuing

loans that did not meet the company’s underwriting standards. The FDIC also

sued Michael Perry for negligence in the issuance and securitization of high

risk mortgages. Judge Klausner found “facts, circumstances, situations,

events, or transactions” in common with the Tripp litigation, as well as the

application of the interrelated wrongful acts limitation.

2. FDIC-HBD Matter – this matter focused on the actions of the Home Builders

Division of IndyMac, and Judge Klausner found that this Division approved

loans in violation of IndyMac’s underwriting standards, thereby creating a

connection to the Tripp litigation.

3. Trustee Demand and Trustee Litigation – the trustee for the directors first sent

a demand letter to Michael Perry, then sued him for breach of fiduciary duties

in connection with a decision by directors and officers to “downstream funds

from Bancorp to IndyMac.” Judge Klausner continued, “these claims directly

result from the financial situation facing IndyMac as a result of the wrongful

mortgage practices that are at the heart of the Tripp litigation.”

4. MBIA Litigation and Assured Guaranty – the allegations in this case were that

the defendants did not follow underwriting standards and did not disclose that

the mortgages that were part of the securitization were high risk. The Court

found that these allegations have the same factual basis as those in the Tripp

litigation.

(4)

5. SEC Litigation – this was an enforcement action brought against defendants

Perry and Keys for allegedly making false representations concerning

IndyMac’s financial condition in SEC filings. Judge Klausner observed that

“the wrongs alleged in the SEC Litigation directly resulted from IndyMac’s

decision to abandon its underwriting practices and guidelines” and “[t]he risky

mortgages put IndyMac in a perilous financial condition ….” Thereupon he

had no trouble connecting the SEC Litigation with the Tripp litigation.

In Ciena Capital LLC (f/k/a Business Loan Express LLC) v. XL Specialty Insurance Co. and Indian Harbor Insurance Co., No. 651452/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 26, 2012), the defendant sister insurance carriers, XL Specialty Insurance Co. and Indian Harbor Insurance Co. (together, “XL”) moved to dismiss the action for breach of contract and declaratory relief based on Pending and Prior Proceedings Exclusions in the XL policies with a date of May 31, 2007.1 The policy of XL Specialty Insurance Co. provides, in pertinent part, as follows

-“The Insurer shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in connection with any Claim made against an Insured Person, or with respect to INSURING AGREEMENT (C), the Company … based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from, in consequence of, or in any way involving any fact, circumstance, situation, transaction, event or Wrongful Act, Company Wrongful Act or Employment Practices Wrongful Act underlying or alleged in any prior and/or pending litigation or administrative or regulatory proceeding or arbitration which was brought prior to the Pending and Prior Litigation Date set forth in ITEM 6 of the Declarations … ”

and

the policy of Indian Harbor Insurance Co. contained a similar provision which referred to investigations as well as regulatory proceedings.

The insured sought coverage for a qui tam action styled United States of America ex rel. Brickman v. Business Loan Express, LLC, et al. (the “Brickman Action”), which was filed under seal on December 28, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.2 The Brickman Action involved the small business lending activities of Ciena’s predecessor Business Loan Express (“BLX”), and the allegations related to activities allegedly undertaken while BLX participated as a lender in the Preferred Lender Program (“PLP”), pursuant to which the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) guaranteed certain loans issued by BLX against default. The Brickman Action contended that BLX, its owner, Allied Capital, and six BLX employees engaged in fraudulent lending practices in connection with specific loans issued in Georgia, Michigan, New York, and Virginia pursuant to which BLX submitted false claims to the government in violation of the United States False Claims Act.

XL contended that the Brickman Action was related to three other matters pending prior to May 31, 2007 (the operative date of XL’s Pending and Prior Proceedings Exclusions) involving “BLX’s alleged fraudulent lending practices in connection with SBA guaranteed loans” (the “Other Proceedings”). The Other Proceedings included: (i) investigations into BLX’s lending practices by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice; (ii) an indictment of BLX Executive Vice President Patrick Harrington for his alleged involvement in the fraudulent origination of seventy-six SBA-guaranteed loans at a BLX office in Michigan; and (iii) a separate qui tam

(5)

circumstances or Wrongful Acts in the Other Proceedings and, therefore, should be excluded by the Pending and Prior Proceeding Exclusion.

Despite the broad language of the exclusions which referred to any facts, circumstances, transactions or Wrongful Acts, Judge Eileen Bransten denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that there was an issue of fact as to whether the Other Proceedings bore a substantial enough relationship to the Brickman Action, particularly because the specific loans at issue in the Brickman Action were not mentioned in any of the documentary evidence submitted by XL with respect to the Other Proceedings, including to the government investigations. Additionally, although the Harrington indictment pertained to BLX loans issued in Michigan, Judge Bransten found the indictment did not have a substantial relation to the Brickman Action because: (i) Mr. Harrington purportedly claimed that he did not have evidence to implicate BLX or its management when he was provided the opportunity by the government to receive a sizable reduction in his prison sentence; and (ii) Mr. Harrington was not named as a defendant in the Brickman Action. Finally, Judge Bransten found that there was not a sufficient factual nexus between the fraudulent procurement of the loans under the SBA’s General Purpose Lender Program and the Brickman Action (which pertained to PLP loans).

Although this case involved the broader language in the exclusion, the court was not presented with the issue of allocating the claims among two towers as in the other decisions discussed above. XL is appealing the decision.

Mr. Fraser is a partner at D’Amato & Lynch, LLP. His practice concentrates principally on employee benefit plan fiduciary liability and professional liability insurance coverage and representation.

RSFraser@DAmato-Lynch.com

Mr. Curley is a partner at D’Amato & Lynch, LLP. His practice focuses on corporate, banking and financial representation, as well as directors and officers, and other professional liability, insurance coverage.

GCurley@DAmato-Lynch.com

1XL also moved to dismiss based on a General E&O Exclusion contained in the Management Liability Policy. This

argument was also rejected by the court on the basis that the exclusion was ambiguous because it did not define the term “services.”

2A copy of the complaint was not provided to Ciena until September 28, 2008. Although the Brickman Action

remained under seal at all times relevant to the decision discussed above, it should be noted that Ciena received permission from the United States Attorney’s office to disclose the existence of the action to the carriers. Both the providing of the complaint to Ciena by the government and the subsequent disclosure of same to the carriers occurred during the term of the carriers’ respective claims made and reported policies.

References

Related documents

Primary fieldwork activity includes accurate determinations, observations, and measurements on sedimentology, organic matter characteristics, and detailed stratigraphy of the

Commercial Union Insurance Company appeals from a judgment declaring that under a liquor liability exclusion in an insurance policy issued by Threshermens Mutual Insurance Company,

Amount Claim Amount Claim Amount Amount Priority Amount Claim Amount National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa... Amount Claim Amount Claim Amount Amount Priority

10243 National Continental Insurance Company PC New York 16217 National Farmers Union Property and Casualty Company PC Colorado 20478 National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford

ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 2 76,148 0.23 ALLY INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD... NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY 3 8,596

And B&S filed a cross-claim against their insurer, United Specialty Insurance Company, asserting that United issued a commercial general liability policy that covers

The defendants are Indemnity Insurance Company of North America an insurance company who issued a general liability insurance policy and an umbrella liability insurance policy to

In addition to the Limited Benefit medical coverage underwritten by the National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., our program also offers optional benefits to