United States: The Insured v. Insured Exclusion Isn't As Broad As D&O Insurers Try To Make It

Last Updated: January 6 2015
Article by Darren S. Teshima

Recent decisions demonstrate a growing consensus favorable to policyholders on a subject that has divided courts for decades: whether the insured v. insured exclusion in D&O policies prevents coverage for claims brought by a receiver of a failed bank against the bank's directors and officers. In the wake of the financial crisis, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC") has brought numerous actions against former directors and officers alleging negligence and mismanagement. When directors and officers have tendered the claims to their D&O insurer, insurers often have denied coverage, citing the insured v. insured exclusion and arguing that the FDIC stepped into the shoes of the failed bank, another insured. Thankfully for policyholders, the majority of courts that have addressed this issue have rejected the insurers' argument. The recent decision in St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Hahn highlights this growing trend.

On October 8, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California rejected an insurer's reliance on the insured v. insured exclusion. In that case, the FDIC stepped in as receiver for a failed bank, Pacific Coast National Bank ("Pacific Coast"). It brought a lawsuit against six of Pacific Coast's directors and officers, alleging that they failed to properly discharge their duties and obligations in managing Pacific Coast. The FDIC alleged that the directors and officers improperly originated and approved loans in violation of Pacific Coast's own policies, extended credit to borrowers who were not creditworthy, approved and originated speculative commercial real estate loans, and committed a series of other misdeeds. The directors and officers tendered the claim to Pacific Coast's D&O insurer, Travelers. Travelers (through St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company) denied coverage, arguing that the insured v. insured exclusion barred coverage because the FDIC was acting "on behalf" of Pacific Coast. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled for the policyholders and held that the exclusion did not bar coverage.

While the Hahn decision is consistent with the majority of courts that have addressed the issue, the jurisprudence about the scope of the insured v. insured exclusion is far from settled. Indeed, there are decisions coming out on both sides of the issue dating back to the 1980s, when insurers relied on this exclusion to deny similar claims related to the savings and loan crisis.

The Insured v. Insured Exclusion

The insured v. insured exclusion in insurance policies excludes from coverage claims based on suits brought by one insured against another. The exclusion generally reads as follows, as it did in the policy at issue in Hahn:

The Insurer shall not be liable for Loss [including Defense Costs] on account of any Claim made against any Insured...brought or maintained by or on behalf of an Insured or Company [including the Bank] in any capacity, except a Claim that is a derivative action brought or maintained on behalf of the Company by one or more persons who are not Directors or Officers and who bring and maintain such Claim without the solicitation, assistance or active participation of any Director or Officer.

Insurers added the insured v. insured exclusion to their D&O policies in the mid-to-late 1980s when financial institutions allegedly "collusively" sued their own directors and officers for their allegedly poor business decisions in an attempt to recover their losses with proceeds from their D&O policies. A classic example of such a supposed "collusive" suit was in the 1980s when Bank of America sued six of its officers for millions of dollars in damages in Bank of America v. Powers. Bank of America blamed its officers and directors for their allegedly bad decisions related to their mortgage-backed securities practice, and it sought D&O coverage for the claims. Although the case ultimately settled, the insurer argued that the D&O policy did not provide coverage because Bank of America had brought its claims in an effort to negate its capital losses by suing its own directors and officers in order to gain access to their insurance coverage.

Since that time, insurers have regularly cited the exclusion in an effort to avoid covering claims brought by the FDIC after a bank failure. Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), the FDIC has broad authority to operate failed banks and dispose of their assets once it is appointed as a receiver. In its capacity as receiver, the FDIC will oftentimes sue the bank's directors and officers. The directors and officers in turn assert that the claims against them are covered by the bank's D&O policies, as the directors and officers did in Travelers in Hahn.

Insurers regularly deny coverage for these claims, arguing that if the bank could not have sued its directors and officers then a receiver that steps in the bank's shoes and sues on behalf of the bank likewise cannot sue the bank's directors and officers. On the other hand, directors and officers contend that a lawsuit brought by a receiver is not the sort of "collusive" lawsuit that the insured v. insured exclusion seeks to avoid. They assert that the FDIC is genuinely adverse to the defendant officers and directors. Although courts around the country have not adopted a uniform jurisprudence regarding these cases, they regularly hold that directors and officers are entitled to coverage when the FDIC sues them.

The Majority of Courts Hold that the Exclusion Does Not Preclude Coverage for Receivers' Claims

The Hahn court's decision granting coverage under the D&O policy follows the majority rule and the recent trend. When the FDIC stepped in as a failed bank's receiver, the insurer, Travelers, argued that the FDIC asserted claims against the directors and officers that belonged only to Pacific Coast, which was also an insured under the policy. Relying on the insured v. insured exclusion, which excluded coverage for claims brought "by or on behalf of an Insured or Company," Travelers contended that the FDIC was bringing those claims "on behalf of" Pacific Coast in a receivership capacity. Since the insured v. insured exclusion would apply if the Pacific Coast action had been brought by Pacific Coast, St. Paul contended, the FDIC could not transform Pacific Coast's claim into a covered claim simply because the FDIC had brought the claim on Pacific Coast's behalf.

The FDIC responded that because the policy defined the "Insured" to be Pacific Coast, the FDIC's action against the directors and officers could not be brought by Pacific Coast and was not on its behalf. The FDIC explained that nobody from the bank had any involvement in bringing the claim. Additionally, as the party drafting the policy, Travelers could have included a provision explicitly excluding coverage for a suit brought by federal regulators or receivers generally or by the FDIC specifically, but it did not.

Furthermore, the FDIC argued that the shareholder exception to the insured v. insured exclusion provided coverage because it specifically allowed derivative claims by shareholders on behalf of the bank. Travelers disagreed, noting that the FDIC action was not technically a derivative action. The court favored FDIC's position, noting that the FDIC can act in a variety of capacities, and that the shareholder exception "evidences an intent to place on [the] insurer the risk for actions against the D&Os." St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Hahn, Case No. SACV 13-0424 AG (RNBx), 2014 WL 5369400, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2014); see also FDIC v. BancInsure, No. CV 12-09882, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82892, at *25 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2014).

The Hahn court agreed with the FDIC and the directors and officers, holding that the exclusion was ambiguous as to the FDIC, particularly because courts across the country have reached conflicting interpretations of the exclusion. The court stated that the unsettled caselaw placed insurers on notice that the exclusion was ambiguous, and that to be effective in this circumstance it should be more clearly explained. The court also noted that Travelers could have included an exclusion to bar claims asserted by the FDIC, as the insurer offered an optional regulatory exclusion that explicitly named the FDIC. Since California law, like the law of most states, requires ambiguities in an insurance policy to be resolved against the insurer, the district court held that the insured v. insured exclusion did not apply.

Other courts have similarly recognized that a receiver does not merely "stand in the shoes" of a failed institution, but also can bring claims on behalf of the institution's shareholders and creditors. See W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins. Co., Civil No. 11-2271 (GAG), 2014 WL 3378671, at *1-2 (D.P.R. July 9, 2014) (granting summary judgment to the policyholders and rejecting the insurer's argument that the insured v. insured exclusion prevented coverage for the FDIC's claims against the directors and offers because they were made "on behalf of" or "in the right of" the failed bank); see also Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Zandstra, 756 F. Supp. 429, 433 (N.D. Cal. 1990); American Cas. Co. v. FDIC, 713 F. Supp. 311 (N.D. Iowa 1988). These holdings comport with statutory law as well, which recognizes the FDIC's capacity to bring derivative claims. Under FIRREA, the FDIC has the authority to succeed not only to the rights of the failed bank, but also to those "of any stockholder, member, [or] accountholder...of such institution." 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(A)(i). Therefore, "the FDIC differs from other receivers insofar as it is given the exclusive authority to bring claims to recover losses by shareholders." BancInsure, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82892, at *20).

Nevertheless, the Caselaw Is Unsettled

Despite decisions like Hahn and W Holding, application of the insured v. insured exclusion to FDIC claims remains unsettled. As the First Circuit put it in W Holding, "[w]hat we have is a classic battle of dueling caselaw." W Holding Co. v. AIG Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 377, at 386 (1st Cir. 2014). Courts that have applied the insured v. insured exclusion to claims brought by the FDIC have pointed to insurers' fears of collusion—the reason insurers included insured v. insured exclusions in the first place. For example, in St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Miller, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1243 (N.D. Ga. 2013), the FDIC took over for a failed bank as receiver and then sued two bank employees for improper and negligent activities. The individuals sought coverage under the bank's D&O policy, issued by St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company. St. Paul agreed to cover defense costs under a reservation of rights and initiated a lawsuit to establish no coverage based in part on the insured v. insured exclusion. The exclusion provided that the insurer was not liable for any claim "brought or maintained by or on behalf of any Insured or Company in any capacity," except when certain exceptions applied. The court rejected the FDIC's argument that because the purpose of the insured v. insured exclusion is to prevent collusive suits, the exclusion is inapplicable to the FDIC, which it asserted was clearly not collusive. The court disagreed with the FDIC and stated that it could not refuse to give effect to an "unambiguous term of the policy based on an assumption of why the language was put into the policy." Miller, 968 F. Supp. 2d at 1243. The Miller court agreed with the insurer, holding that because the FDIC stood in the failed bank's shoes, the insured v. insured exclusion precluded coverage.

How Policyholders Can Protect Themselves Against a Possible Coverage Denial

While decisions like Miller are unfavorable to policyholders, they are fortunately outnumbered by the decisions like Hahn, which signal a growing consensus among courts that the insured v. insured exclusion should not apply to suits brought by the FDIC and other regulators. Hahn correctly recognizes that the FDIC acts in a variety of capacities and "on behalf of" a variety of interests, not just the failed bank. The insured v. insured exclusion, therefore, should not be read to exclude coverage for claims by a receiver. Policyholder financial institutions that are concerned about whether D&O coverage will be available in the unfortunate event of being taken over by a receiver should consider obtaining policy language that specifically carves out such claims from the insured v. insured exclusion. For example, a recent policy includes an insured v. insured exclusion with the following exception: "This Policy shall not cover any Loss in connection with any Claim brought by or on behalf of an Insured, provided however, that this Exclusion shall not apply to any Claim brought or maintained by or on behalf of a bankruptcy or insolvency trustee, examiner, receiver or similar official for the Company or any assignee of such trustee, examiner, receiver or similar official." Such policy language will better serve policyholders in challenging an insurer's denial of such a claim.

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.

Events from this Firm
26 Sep 2018, Seminar, Tokyo, Japan

Orrick’s Global Japan Practice is hosting a series of “Orrick Library” seminars to explore legal issues in various fields in Japan as well as the United States, Asia and Europe

26 Sep 2018, Conference, New York, United States

Employment Partner, Mandy Perry and Chair of Orrick's Global Employment Law Practice, Mike Delikat will be participating in the Global Business Protections 2018: International Restrictive Covenants and Confidential Information Conference.

10 Oct 2018, Conference, Florida, United States
Julie Totten is Program Chair of this year’s conference, Lynne Hermle is speaking on women in the courtroom, boardroom, and c-suite, and Erin Connell is speaking on pay equity and pay transparency.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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