The insurance sector in the UK is subject to a complex and dynamic regulatory framework, which aims to ensure the protection of policyholders, the stability of the financial system and the promotion of fair and effective competition.
The main sources of regulation in the UK come from legislation, the rules and guidance of the Prudential
Evidenced by its $1.29 trillion market cap, (CoinMarketCap, May 17, 2022) interest in cryptocurrency has skyrocketed in recent years (Haar, 2022). Indeed, as of April 2, 2022, the cryptocurrency market was larger than Italy’s GDP, the eighth largest in the world (Adams and Walker, 2022).
Of course, with more interest and value comes more risk, such as theft of digital assets, cyber security concerns, and regulatory impacts. With respect to the evolving crypto markets, this increase in risk is widespread and readily apparent. Indeed, President Biden signed an executive order on March 9, 2022 requiring the government to assess the risks and benefits of creating a central bank digital dollar, as well as other cryptocurrency issues (Johnson and Shalal, 2022; White House, 2022).
Who is at risk?
If you or your company trade cryptocurrencies on your own behalf or on behalf of clients, make or receive payments in cryptocurrency, store the keys and digital wallets that secure cryptocurrencies and other digital assets like NFTs, develop blockchain technologies, or advise whether cryptocurrencies are a sound investment, then you or your company may be exposed to crypto-related losses.
As an example, companies and their directors and officers could face shareholder or derivative actions alleging gross negligence or breach of fiduciary duties based on allegedly unsound advice relating to the investment in, use of, or management of cryptocurrencies or other digital assets. Public companies may also be subject to regulatory investigations involving cryptocurrencies.
Cryptocurrency is also a popular target for ransomware hackers. Since the first bitcoin block was mined in 2009, more than $1.3 billion has been stolen from cryptocurrency exchanges (Kenneth, 2021).
Will insurance cover crypto-related losses?
Given that cryptocurrency is in its infancy, most insurance policy forms do not expressly address crypto-related losses or risks. That said, specific coverage for such losses may be available, particularly under D&O (directors’ and officers’ liability or management liability) coverage or cyber (network security/privacy liability) coverage. Depending on the text of the policy and the nature of the loss at issue, coverage may lie under existing E&O, crime, and property policies as well.
D&O insurance
D&O insurance protects the personal assets of and provides armor for a company’s board and management. More specifically, it insures (1) claims made against the directors and officers when the company cannot indemnify them (“Side A” coverage); (2) the company itself when the company is required to indemnify its insured directors and officers for claims made against them (“Side B” coverage); and (3) the company against its own liability in a securities claim or (in the case of private companies) any non-excluded claim made against the company as an insured entity (“Side C” coverage).
The policy’s definitions of “Claim” and “Loss” are a good place to start to determine whether D&O coverage may be triggered for crypto-related losses. The term “Claim” should be broad enough to include civil lawsuits, criminal proceedings, administrative proceedings, and investigations against directors and officers, and sometimes include demands to enter into a tolling agreement or requests for interviews or to produce documents made to directors and officers. The term “Loss” should include defense costs, damages, settlements, judgments, and pre- and post-judgment interest, and also should include certain fines and penalties, punitive, exemplary, and multiplied damages (when insurable under applicable law), and awards of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, among other items.Continue Reading Are your crypto risks insured? Look at D&O and cyber policies first
Government investigations by SEC, DOJ, and state attorney generals are a significant source of exposure for companies and their directors and officers. Companies can spend millions of dollars responding to a government subpoena or investigative demand. The broadly worded demands for information or testimony typically require extensive searches through mountains of paper documents and electronically stored information (“ESI”).
As investigation defense costs rise, the question inevitably follows: Will the company’s D&O or professional liability insurance cover the costs of responding to a formal investigative order, civil investigative demand or subpoena? The answer to this question is not always clear-cut. Given the stakes, insurers and policyholders frequently litigate this issue, with courts across the country reaching different conclusions depending on the unique terms, definitions, and conditions of the policies and the type of investigation at issue. A recent decision in Delaware addressing insurance coverage for the costs of responding to a civil investigative demand provides helpful guidance for policyholders seeking coverage for these costs.
In Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., No. N20C-04-268 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 2021), appeal refused, 266 A.3d 212 (Del. 2021), the Delaware Superior Court considered whether a civil investigative demand – issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York and the U.S. Department of Justice – qualified as a “Claim” as required to trigger coverage under the policyholder’s Private Company Management Liability Policy. The civil investigative demand was issued pursuant to the False Claims Act “in the course of an investigation to determine whether there is or has been a violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729.”Continue Reading Guaranteed Rate v. Ace American Insurance – a victory for policyholders seeking coverage for government investigations
If an insurance company owes a duty to defend, the dispute should be decided promptly, on the pleadings. Any delay undermines the duty to defend. The scope of the duty to defend should be adjudicated on the pleadings as quickly as possible to give policyholders the true value of their policies and the benefit of their contracts.
The value and purpose of the duty to defend
The duty to defend is one of the most valuable components of an insurance policy. Like it or not, American society is litigious. Companies cannot prevent lawsuits through good conduct, laudable intentions, or strong compliance programs. Refuting liability and damages is expensive even if the core facts are undisputed or the case is frivolous.
For a single company or individual, the frequency and size of litigation generally is unpredictable, making budgeting for defense costs a difficult task. In any single year, the risk of litigation is low, but when a claim does come in, defense costs can be significant. This litigation landscape is a problem for legal departments trying to budget or reserve for litigation costs.
The duty to defend addresses this problem using the principles of risk transfer and risk pooling.
This way no one has to assess the risk that any individual company is sued or anticipate those defense costs. Policyholders can include insurance premium costs in their legal budgets, and shift covered defense costs onto the insurer. The insurance company underwriters can evaluate the aggregate defense spend at a gross systemic level and charge premiums to cover those costs (with a healthy profit margin).Continue Reading The duty to defend requires an early judgment
Ever since the Seventh Circuit’s 2001 decision in Level 3 Communications, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 272 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2001), insurance companies have argued that settlements constituting restitution or disgorgement are uninsurable on grounds of public policy. While numerous decisions since 2001 have undercut this defense, two recent decisions out of the New York Court of Appeals and the Northern District of Illinois further confirm that coverage does not depend on how the damages paid are characterized. In both J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. v. Vigilant Insurance Co., No. 61, 2021 N.Y. slip op. 06528 (N.Y. Nov. 23, 2021), and Astellas v. Starr Indemnity, No. 17-cv-8220 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2021), the courts looked beyond the labels of “restitution” and “disgorgement” affixed to the insureds’ settlement payments to determine whether such payments were covered by each insureds’ respective insurance policies.
Last week’s post on The Policyholder Perspective took an in-depth look at Vigilant Insurance Co. This week we consider how Vigilant, in tandem with Astellas, demonstrates a trend in how courts interpret labels on payments in an insured’s settlement agreement.
In Astellas, the insured (Astellas) entered a settlement agreement relating to a False Claims Act investigation and agreed to pay $100 million plus interest to the United States, with $50 million of such settlement labeled as “restitution to the United States.” In a similar vein, the insured (Bear Sterns) in Vigilant Insurance Co. entered a settlement agreement with the SEC for alleged illegal trading practices and made a $160 million “disgorgement” payment – $140 million of which was an estimate of the profits gained by Bear Sterns’ clients – and a $90 million payment for “civil money penalties.” Astellas submitted a claim to its insurers for the $50 million “restitution to the United States,” and Bear Sterns submitted a claim for the $140 million “disgorgement” payment reflecting its clients’ profits gained.Continue Reading Labels, Shmabels: Recent Decisions Confirm No “Restitution / Disgorgement” Exclusion in Management Liability Policies
Putting an end to a 12-year-old dispute between J.P. Morgan Securities’ predecessor, Bear Stearns & Co., and several of its insurers, on November 23, 2021, New York’s high court held that J.P. Morgan’s $140 million payment to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) did not constitute an uninsurable “penalty” under J.P. Morgan’s excess directors & officers (D&O) liability policies. This is welcome news for policyholders faced with coverage denials from their insurers based on “public policy,” “fines or penalty,” “disgorgement” or other grounds of alleged uninsurability.
In J.P. Morgan, J.P. Morgan’s $140 million “disgorgement” payment was part of a larger $250 million settlement between J.P. Morgan and the SEC. $90 million of the settlement was specifically allocated to “civil money penalties.” The settlement resolved allegations that Bear Stearns & Co. and other securities broker-dealers facilitated late trading and deceptive market timing practices by their customers in connection with the purchase and sale of mutual funds.
J.P. Morgan’s excess policies covered “loss” that the insured entities became liable to pay as the result of any civil proceeding or governmental investigation alleging wrongful acts constituting violations of laws or regulations. The policies defined “loss” to include various types of compensatory and punitive damages where “insurable by law,” but specifically excluded matters uninsurable as a matter of public policy and “fines or penalties imposed by law.” The insurers argued that the disgorgement payment was uninsurable as a matter of New York law both as form of restitution of ill-gotten gains and as a penalty imposed by law.Continue Reading End to long-running dispute over uninsurability under D&O insurance
Faced with mounting claims for insurance coverage as a result of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, commercial insurers are likely to search for any policy provision that they think will enable them to avoid paying virus-related claims. One provision that insurers ultimately may invoke in an attempt to deny such claims is the so-called “pollution exclusion” – an exclusion that can be found in both commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies and property insurance policies. Policyholders should anticipate such an argument and should not walk away from insurance claims just because of it. Although the exclusion is often broadly worded, there is generally good reason not to read it to preclude coverage for third-party claims and/or first-party losses involving viruses, including COVID-19.
While the exact language of the pollution exclusion may differ from one policy to another, it typically provides that there is no insurance for “bodily injury” and/or “property damage” that “would not have occurred in whole or in part but for the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape of ‘pollutants’ at any time.” Again, while its precise definition can vary among policies, “pollutant” is typically defined as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.”Continue Reading Pollution exclusion should not preclude coverage for virus-related claims
When is a person an “employee” under one insurance policy but not an employee under another? Conflicting or inconsistent definitions across multiple policy lines issued to the same company can give rise to significant gaps in insurance coverage, as a recent opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit instructs, Telamon Corp. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co., Nos. 16-1205 & 16-1815 (7th Cir. March 9, 2017).
Telamon hired Juanita Berry in 2005 under a series of consulting agreements with her personal communications company, J. Starr Communications. Over the next six years, Berry’s job responsibilities expanded beyond the terms of the consulting agreements, with Telamon eventually naming her Vice President of Major Accounts, the senior-most manager in one of the company’s divisions on the East Coast. Part of Berry’s job was to oversee an asset recovery program under which Telamon removed old AT&T equipment and sold it to salvagers. But without the company’s knowledge, Berry personally removed the old equipment and sold it, keeping the money for herself. By the time Telamon discovered the scheme, Berry had embezzled $5.2 million. Telamon fired Berry, and the government indicted her on wire fraud and tax evasion charges. She was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.Continue Reading Schrödinger’s Coverage: When a Risk is Covered and Not Covered by Insurance
The New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced last week a series of measures it plans to take “to help strengthen cyber hacking defenses at insurers.” Those measures include, among other things: regular, targeted assessments of cyber security preparedness at insurance companies; putting forward enhanced regulations requiring institutions to meet heightened standards for cyber security; and considering the ways in which NYDFS can support and encourage the development of the cyber security insurance market. The NYDFS stated that it plans to initiate these measures in the coming weeks and months.
Continue Reading New York Department of Financial Services Announces New Cyber Security Measures Directed at Strengthening Insurers’ Cyber Defenses