United States: Interpretation Problems: Interrelated Wrongful Acts

Some coverage exclusions are so broadly written that it can be challenging for courts to keep them in their proper place.  The problem might be that insurance companies were permitted to use such exclusions in the first place.

It is a truism of insurance law that a court should not interpret or apply a policy exclusion such that it renders the coverage illusory.

With that general principle in mind, every Board member, General Counsel, and Risk Manager of a company that has Directors' & Officers' Liability coverage should pay close attention to two particular policy provisions.  In some policies, it is called the "Interrelated Wrongful Acts" clause.  In others, it might be a similarly worded "Prior and Pending Proceeding" exclusion.  A recent decision by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland is a reminder of how these provisions, if construed as broadly as carriers often argue that they should be construed, can be quite pernicious and can nullify coverage that a policyholder would have reasonably believed it had in place.

The terms of D&O policies vary from carrier to carrier to a greater extent than most other liability insurance policies sold in the United States.  That said, essentially all D&O policies are written on a claims-made-and-reported basis, which means that coverage only applies if the potentially covered claim against the insured is made during the policy period and if the insured also reports the claim to the carrier during the policy period.  For a claims-made policy, the end of the policy period is (with certain exceptions not really relevant to this discussion) a hard-stop on the carrier's coverage obligations.

Often — perhaps we might even say, "most of the time" — the events that gave rise to the claim against the insured happened before the policy period.  It's a fairly rare claim against a director or officer of a company where the alleged wrongful act results in the immediate filing of a complaint or a demand by the injured party.  There's usually some lag time between the two.  (For this reason, and not to get too far off-topic, it is a best practice for a policyholder to give the carrier what is called a "notice of circumstances" whenever an act or event involving an officer or director could potentially result in a claim being made against the company.)  As long as the insured doesn't hide from the carrier an act or circumstance that might eventually lead to a claim or lawsuit against an officer or director, the carrier should be obligated to cover a pre-policy "wrongful act" that results in the filing of a claim or lawsuit against the insured during the policy based upon the pre-policy behavior.

But sometimes a claim or lawsuit during the policy period "relates" in some way to a previously filed claim or suit.  And that's where the potentially nasty exclusions may come into play. Most D&O policies have some form of an "Interrelated Wrongful Acts" provision.

Again, language can vary, but the provision typically says that more than one claim involving "interrelated wrongful acts" will be considered one claim and that such a claim will be deemed to have been made on the first date on which the earliest such claim was made.  Since a covered claim is one that is both made against the insured and reported to the carrier during the policy period, if a claim involving an "interrelated wrongful act" occurs before the policy period in which the insured gave notice, the carrier is sure to argue that the claim during the present policy is not covered.  (Also, as mentioned, the troublesome provision is sometimes called a "Prior and Pending Proceeding" exclusion; and, although the PPP exclusion is often tied to a "retroactive date" that provides a pre-policy grace period of sorts for the timing of the prior claim, the language and effect of the PPP exclusion and the "Interrelated Wrongful Acts" provision present essentially the same coverage problem.)

You might think that it should always be relatively easy to figure out whether a prior claim was "interrelated" with the later claim for which the insured is seeking coverage.  And you'd be wrong.

The uncertainty arises because both the PPP exclusion and the "Interrelated Wrongful Acts" clause define "interrelated" incredibly broadly.  For example, a common definition of "Interrelated Wrongful Acts" is "any Wrongful Act that is logically or causally connected by reason of any common fact, circumstance, situation, transaction or event."  This definition fairly begs an insurance company's lawyer to argue that a previous lawsuit has something – anything, really — in common with the lawsuit for which the insured seeks coverage.

It's worth pausing for a moment here to consider a rule of insurance policy interpretation.  In every jurisdiction, courts are supposed to interpret policy exclusions narrowly and strictly in favor of the insured.  So, if there is any reasonable interpretation of an exclusion that could result in finding that it is inapplicable to a circumstance under consideration, the court should adopt that interpretation.

This creates challenges for courts when the exclusion is worded so broadly that it makes it hard to conceive of a set of facts to which the exclusion wouldn't apply. Consider, for example, the phrase under discussion, "any common fact, circumstance, situation, transaction or event."  Apply that phrase literally and every lawsuit involving an insured is "interrelated" to every other lawsuit involving the same insured — the common "fact, circumstance, or situation" being that the insured is a party in both lawsuits.  While no court — thankfully — has ever applied the "Interrelated Wrongful Acts" provision in that way, one might, philosophically at least, ask, "Why not?"  After all, the language of the provision, viewed in a perfectly literal way, supports such a result.

The answer probably lies, at least in part, in a court's abhorrence of absurdity. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."  This should mean that making a law that prohibits yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre violates the First Amendment.  Except that we know it doesn't.

Similarly, "any common fact, circumstance, situation, transaction or event" cannot possibly mean what it literally appears to mean. There are, of course, other words in the provision to consider that might serve to limit or define its scope.  The "wrongful acts" at issue must be "logically or causally connected by reason of" the common fact, circumstance, etc., of the prior "wrongful acts."  In the abstract, though, it is still devilishly hard to figure out how to determine if someone's act is "logically or causally" connected to a later fact, circumstance, situation, transaction or event.  The task becomes no less difficult, unfortunately, when there are concrete facts to apply to the provision. Take, for example, the case W.C. and A.N. Miller Development Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., Case No. GJH-14-00425 (D.Md Nov. 7, 2014).  (Get a copy here.)

International Benefits Group signed a contract with Haymount Limited Partnership in which it agreed to help HLP find financing for a real estate project. In return, if HLP obtained financing for the project from a lender introduced to it by IBG, HLP was supposed to pay IBG a $3 million finder's fee.  IBG made an introduction to HLP that ultimately resulted in financing for the project.  HLP then refused for various reasons to pay the finder's fee.  The refusal to pay allegedly drove IBG into bankruptcy.

The IBG Bankruptcy Trustee then sued HLP in what's called an "Adversary Proceeding" to recover the finder's fee for IBG's bankrupt estate.  That proceeding formed the basis of a later denial of coverage under an "Interrelated Wrongful Acts" clause in HLP's D&O policy. In the Adversary Proceeding, which was filed in 2006, the Trustee made claims against HLP for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, and conspiracy.  It's worth noting that the 2006 HLP D&O policy contained an exclusion for claims of breach of contract.  So, even though the Adversary Proceeding fell within the policy definition of a covered "Claim," the breach-of-contract exclusion precluded coverage for it.

The Trustee won a $4.4 million judgment against HLP in the Adversary Proceeding, which he then went about trying to collect.  To that end, he filed a lawsuit in 2010 against HLP in federal court in New Jersey, in which he claimed that HLP and its principals had been attempting to hide the company's assets from the Trustee in an effort to avoid paying the $4.4 million judgment.  If proved, such actions could violate the law in several ways. The Trustee's 2010 lawsuit made claims of fraudulent transfer, fraudulent conveyance, creditor fraud, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy.  Observe that none of these causes of action are the same as the ones the Trustee made in the 2006 Adversary Proceeding that had resulted in entry of the $4.4 million judgment.

It's easy to see where this is going. HLP tendered the 2010 lawsuit to its D&O carrier, Continental Casualty Company (which is known as "CNA").  The carrier denied on the ground that the 2010 lawsuit involved interrelated wrongful acts that were part of the 2006 Adversary Proceeding; that those interrelated wrongful acts formed the basis of a "Claim" that was first made against HLP in 2006 rather than in 2010; and therefore the Claims in the 2010 lawsuit were not first made and reported to CNA in 2010.  HLP then sued CNA for coverage.

CNA made a motion for summary judgment in the coverage action, which the Court granted on the basis of the Interrelated Wrongful Acts provision.  What is interesting about the decision is that the Court did not appear to struggle with the concept that exclusions in coverage are supposed to be narrowly construed in favor of the policyholder.  In fact, the Court did not even cite the rule.  (Although the "Interrelated Wrongful Acts" provision is not generally listed in the "Exclusions" section of the policy, it obviously acts as an exclusion and should be treated as one when determining how to apply it.)

When courts recite the rule that insurance policies are simply contracts that must be interpreted in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning, and they fail to recite the associated principle that exclusions must be narrowly construed, it's usually a clue that the policyholder is about to lose. CNA's argument, which the Court adopted, was that the wrongful act "at the core" of the Trustee's 2006 Adversary Proceeding was the alleged conspiracy of the principals of HLP to avoid paying the IBG finder's fee and that this was the same wrongful act "at the core" of the 2010 collection lawsuit.

In siding with CNA, the Court found that the 2006 proceeding and the 2010 lawsuit involved "a common scheme" to deprive IBG of its finder's fee.  Note that the Interrelated Wrongful Acts clause does not use the word "scheme."  The actual words used are "common fact, circumstance, situation, transaction or event." The policyholders argued that there were significant differences between the claims and facts in the 2006 Adversary Proceeding and the claims and facts in the 2010 lawsuit, a point that the Court acknowledged to be true.

It is, in fact, not hard to see how the two actions differed from one another, even without having the benefit of sitting through the presentation of evidence in the 2006 Adversary Proceeding. The original action must have involved proof of the existence and terms of the contract.  It must have been shown that there was an introduction made to HLP that resulted in financing the HLP project and that HLP rejected IBG's demand for payment of the finder's fee.  HLP, presumably, raised defenses to the claim for payment.  For example, one of the facts recited in the Miller decision was that the financier who was originally introduced by IBG was not the one who actually provided the financing.  The financing actually resulted from a further introduction to another financier and that subsequent introduction had not directly involved IBG.

The 2010 lawsuit, on the other hand, appears to have involved allegations of activities HLP subsequently took to avoid collection of the $4.4 million judgment.  That claim, presumably, would involve introduction of evidence that had little or nothing to do with the original transaction but, instead, would require proof that HLP began shedding its assets at some point after entry of the judgment.  Those wrongful acts, if they occurred, would not be at all the same acts that HLP engaged in when it rejected the finder's fee.  In other words, had the Miller Court sought to apply the Interrelated Wrongful Acts clause narrowly, such that it would apply only if the actual activities the policyholder undertook were the same in both cases, it could easily have done so in this case.

Yet, the Court rejected the notion that the differences between the two actions were even relevant, holding instead that "the relevant focus is not on any number of differences between the 2006 Adversary Proceeding and the 2010 Lawsuit; instead, the relevant focus is on the similarities between the two."  While this approach may follow from the word "any" that appears in the clause, it does set up something of a self-fulfilling prophecy of interpretation.  If there are 1,000 differences and one similarity, the focus on similarities ensures that the later claim will be excluded.

The Miller Court also noted that the clause requires that the "common" attributes of the two claims must be either "logically or causally" connected.  It then found, in conclusory fashion, that it was "entirely logical that the Trustee would institute the 2010 Lawsuit against HLP, Mr. Miller, and others to recover damages associated with alleged actions taken by them to avoid paying the judgment issued in the 2006 Adversary Proceeding."  The Court is, of course, not actually applying "logic" to the question.  Logic isn't the right word for the statement the Court makes here.  The right word would be "rational," which is not at all the same thing as "logical." To apply logic to this analysis, the Court would have had to inquire whether there was any possible situation in which all of the premises of CNA's arguments were true but the conclusion false.  That's how one tests the validity of an argument using logic.

The Court didn't engage in this analysis, most likely because of sloppiness in the use of language: it was sloppy of the insurer to use the word "logically" when what it clearly meant was "rationally" and it was sloppy of the Court to fail to recognize the difference.

The problem ultimately arises from the breadth of the language of the Interrelated Wrongful Acts clause and the temptation on the part of courts to apply the language literally instead of attempting to cabin the circumstances to which the provision might apply.

Except under relatively limited conditions, all of the language insurance companies seek to include in their policies has to be approved beforehand by each state's Insurance Commissioner.  The approval process is supposed to protect the public from exclusions and limitations that deprive policyholders of coverage essential to the bargain or that give insurance companies a windfall in premiums for coverage that is unreasonably narrow.

If courts frequently have difficulty applying the excessively broad language of the Interrelated Wrongful Acts clause in a way that does not swallow up much of the coverage an average policyholder reasonably expects from its policy, then perhaps the root of the problem is that Insurance Commissioners ever approved the language of the clause in the first place.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions