Delaware Supreme Court Rules on Excess Insurer’s Coverage Obligations

Warren Stern is Of Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, where he concentrates on corporate and securities litigation. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Stern, Martin J.E. Arms and Caitlin A. Donovan. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On September 7, 2012, the Supreme Court of Delaware, applying California law, ruled that an excess insurer of Intel had no payment obligation even after Intel’s out-of-pocket defense costs, combined with Intel’s prior settlement with an underlying insurer, exceeded the underlying insurer’s policy limits — notwithstanding a provision in the excess insurer’s policy providing that coverage would apply when “the insured or the insured’s underlying insurance has paid or is obligated to pay the full amount” of the underlying insurer’s policy limits. Intel Corp. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., et al., No. 692, 2011 (Del. Sept. 7, 2012).

This dispute arose from antitrust litigation that was brought against Intel and for which Intel sought reimbursement for defense costs from its insurers. A small primary policy was quickly exhausted and Intel then entered into coverage litigation with XL, its first excess insurer, that was ultimately settled for $27.5 million of XL’s $50 million policy limits. Having incurred significantly more than $50 million in defense costs, Intel then turned to its second excess insurer, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“AGLI”), for reimbursements for defense costs in excess of XL’s policy limits. AGLI refused coverage and litigation followed.

The Delaware Supreme Court relied on language in a policy endorsement providing that AGLI had no duty to defend until the limits of the underlying insurance were “exhausted by payments of judgments or settlements.” The Court held that defense costs did not satisfy this “judgments or settlements” requirement. With respect to a seemingly conflicting provision stating that “[c]overage under this policy will not apply unless and until the insured or the insured’s underlying insurance has paid or is obligated to pay the full amount of the [underlying policy limits],” the Court found that this separate provision addressed exhaustion due to indemnification for “damages,” and could not be satisfied by payment of defense costs.

The Intel decision is an important new precedent in a series of cases holding that an excess insurer is not obligated to make payments in certain situations where an insured has reached a settlement with an underlying insurer for less than full policy limits, even if the insured fills the “gap” in the coverage tower by making payments itself. The holdings in these cases have been based on the specific policy language at issue and therefore underscore the importance of focusing on the relevant language in excess policies when negotiating insurance policies. In particular, excess policies should have clear language providing (1) that the policy is triggered when amounts equivalent to the underlying limits are paid by either the underlying insurer or the insured, and (2) that all amounts that are included within the coverage of the underlying policy (or that would have been included absent a settlement), whether judgments, settlements, or defense costs, serve to exhaust the underlying limits for the purpose of triggering excess coverage. These cases also highlight the risk that a negotiated settlement with an underlying insurer may harm the insured’s ability ultimately to access excess coverage.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

One Trackback

  1. […] full article via Delaware Supreme Court Rules on Excess Insurer’s Coverage Obligations — The Harvard Law School F…. Share OptionsPrintEmailMoreFacebookLinkedInStumbleUponTwitterPinterestRedditDiggTumblrLike […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  • Subscribe

  • Cosponsored By:

  • Supported By:

  • Programs Faculty & Senior Fellows

    Lucian Bebchuk
    Alon Brav
    Robert Charles Clark
    John Coates
    Alma Cohen
    Stephen M. Davis
    Allen Ferrell
    Jesse Fried
    Oliver Hart
    Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
    Scott Hirst
    Howell Jackson
    Robert J. Jackson, Jr.
    Wei Jiang
    Reinier Kraakman
    Robert Pozen
    Mark Ramseyer
    Mark Roe
    Robert Sitkoff
    Holger Spamann
    Guhan Subramanian

  • Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

    William Ackman
    Peter Atkins
    Joseph Bachelder
    John Bader
    Allison Bennington
    Richard Brand
    Daniel Burch
    Richard Climan
    Jesse Cohn
    Isaac Corré
    Scott Davis
    John Finley
    David Fox
    Stephen Fraidin
    Byron Georgiou
    Carl Icahn
    Jack B. Jacobs
    Paula Loop
    David Millstone
    Theodore Mirvis
    James Morphy
    Toby Myerson
    Morton Pierce
    Barry Rosenstein
    Paul Rowe
    Rodman Ward