Even Innocent Directors and
Officers May See D&O Policies Rescinded This article comes to www.boardoptions.com via Piper
Rudnick. By Shirli Fabbri Weiss and
Nathaniel D. McKitterick When may
a directors and officers liability policy be rescinded (revoked) by the
insurer? This question, of great
concern to insurers and insured directors and officers alike, was answered by
the Ninth Circuit's recent affirmances of two unpublished District Court
decisions from Washington and California. In those decisions, Federal Ins. Co. v. Homestore
and Cutter & Buck v. Genesis Ins. Co., the Ninth Circuit held that an
individual's fraudulent manipulation of a company's financial statements may
justify rescission of the D&O policy as to all insureds, even the
"innocent" insureds.
These decisions may prove significant in several ways. Rescission
is the complete voiding of an insurance policy ab initio, so that it is as if
the policy were never purchased, leaving all or some of the insureds without
insurance coverage. It may occur
where there is a material error, however innocent, in the application and
associated materials.
Rescission, though an extraordinary action for the insurer to take,
may occur after a claim has been made against the insureds by, for example,
aggrieved shareholders and/or government regulators. Directors and officers affected by
that rescission would be left to rely solely on indemnification (which may or
may not be approved) by a company that may be facing financial adversity,
with the value of such indemnification being lessened the closer the company
is to insolvency or bankruptcy. Rescission
May Not Require Intent To Deceive First,
the Ninth Circuit has endorsed a lower bar for rescission than some
policyholders had championed.
Homestore, applying California law, held that an insurer may rescind a
D&O policy if it is able to demonstrate that it relied on a
misrepresentation in the application for insurance (including certain
publicly available financial statements) and that the misrepresentation was
material to the insurer's decision to insure the company, whether or not
someone at the company was intentionally trying to deceive the insurer or
others. Cutter & Buck,
applying Washington law, held that the misrepresentation must be made with
the intent to deceive the insurer; however, in Washington, the fact that a
misrepresentation was made can result in a rebuttable presumption of an
intent to deceive. Financial
Errors Also Justify Rescission Second,
the court justified rescission based not on a misstatement or omission in any
answer to a question in the application, but rather upon misrepresentations
in the company's financial statements that had been reviewed by the insurer
in its underwriting process. In
both cases, rescission was based on revenue recognition errors in the
financial statements-errors that certain board members and officers argued
they were unaware of. Nevertheless, because the policy applications were deemed
to have incorporated those financials by reference, and because the erroneous
financial statements were deemed to be material to the insurer's agreement to
insure (if only because an error in the financial statements increases the
potential for a suit), rescission was deemed proper as to all insureds. The
courts in both Homestore and Cutter & Buck also held that the fact that
the financial statements had not been physically attached to the insurance
application was irrelevant. The
insured in each case was told that the financial statements would be
considered by the insurer in the underwriting process, and that was
sufficient to justify rescission. Ruling
Highlights Importance of Careful Consideration Of Insurance Proposals Finally,
these opinions highlight the potential importance of just a few words
contained in lengthy insurance contracts. In determining that the insurer could rescind, both
opinions relied on the negotiated language of the insurance contract. The key policy provision is
severability of the application language. In the context of rescission, the scope of the negotiated
severability language will determine whether coverage is available to the
innocent insureds. Here, the clarity
of the negotiated language is critical. In Cutter & Buck, the innocent insureds thought
that the intent of the policy's severability provision was to preserve their
coverage, but the legal effect of the chosen words, in that case, proved
otherwise. Of
course, severability language is one in a multitude of terms in a D&O
policy in addition to moving parts, such as notice, discovery options, and
the like). Indeed, there are
different types of D&O primary and excess policies on offer, including some
that provide coverage for some insureds in the event the primary policy is
rescinded. Insureds
are cautioned to work closely with their counsel and broker early in the
application and renewal process, to make sure that they are fully aware of
the scope and limitations of available coverage. Published
by DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP 401 B
Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, California 92101-4297, USA Copyright
(c) 2005 DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP |