<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/contributor/caitlin-a-donovan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:01:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Delaware Supreme Court Rules on Excess Insurer&#8217;s Coverage Obligations</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/09/27/deleware-supreme-court-rules-on-excess-insurers-coverage-obligations/</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/09/27/deleware-supreme-court-rules-on-excess-insurers-coverage-obligations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:53:06 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=33392?d=20150113135756EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 &#8212; notwithstanding a provision in the excess insurer’s policy providing that [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Warren Stern, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on Thursday, September 27, 2012 </em><div style="background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px"><strong>Editor's Note: </strong> <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/WRStern/" target="_blank">Warren Stern</a> is Of Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &amp; Katz, where he concentrates on corporate and securities litigation. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Stern, <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/MJEArms/" target="_blank">Martin J.E. Arms</a> and <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/CADonovan/" target="_blank">Caitlin A. Donovan</a>. This post is part of the <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">Delaware law series</a>, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">here</a>.
</div></hgroup><p>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 &#8212; 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. <a href="http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=178140" target="_blank">Intel Corp. v. Am. Guar. &amp; Liab. Ins. Co., et al.</a>, No. 692, 2011 (Del. Sept. 7, 2012).</p>
<p>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 &amp; Liability Insurance Company (“AGLI”), for reimbursements for defense costs in excess of XL’s policy limits. AGLI refused coverage and litigation followed.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/09/27/deleware-supreme-court-rules-on-excess-insurers-coverage-obligations/#more-33392" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Delaware Supreme Court Rules on Excess Insurer&#8217;s Coverage Obligations">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/09/27/deleware-supreme-court-rules-on-excess-insurers-coverage-obligations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
