Policyholder Pulse
Contra proferentem is a foundational legal principle with particular importance in insurance law. It mandates that any ambiguities in an insurance policy are construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured. The doctrine recognizes that insurance policies generally are contracts of adhesion, in which the insurer wields the “power of the pen,” and the insured is invited to accept the terms of the pre-written agreement with little to no alteration. Contra proferentem mitigates the inherent inequality of an arrangement where insurers generally have sole drafting authority and insureds, often with limited bargaining power, must accept the insurers’ terms as written. By resolving ambiguities in those terms against the insurer, courts are able to counterbalance some of this inequity and find coverage for policyholders.
In the last few years, the video game industry has been hit with 
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down a big win for policyholders just in time for the holidays. In 
Long a feature of directors’ and officers’ (D&O) liability insurance policies, the so-called “Bump-Up” Exclusion has gotten significant attention over the last few years. Because of the recent escalation in securities litigation that follows a majority of mergers and acquisitions, the Bump-Up Exclusion is of critical importance to publicly traded policyholders. Bump-Up Exclusion provisions are often found in a D&O policy’s definition of “Loss” and purport to exclude the amount of a settlement or judgment that represents an increase in the price paid to acquire an entity, where such consideration was alleged to be inadequate. A recent decision out of the Delaware state courts affirms again that D&O insurers will be held to the specific terms of their Bump-Up Exclusions.
Courts don’t look kindly upon insurance company shell games. In 
Following the breakup of large utility holding companies by trust busters in the 1930s, General Electric created Ebasco (Electric Bond and Share Company), a construction company and consultancy that, among other things, assisted newly independent utilities throughout the United States to obtain broad excess-level occurrence-based liability insurance policies. These so-called Ebasco policies were attractive to utility policyholders because of their comprehensive insuring agreement, modest exclusions (e.g., no pollution exclusions), and the absence of aggregate limits. Illustratively, a $10 million Ebasco policy potentially could pay up to 20 times its limits (equivalent to $200 million) to fund cleanup of 20 contaminated sites, assuming an occurrence at each site happened during the policy period. For decades, Ebasco policies, primarily underwritten by London market insurers, have been the subject of litigation related to pollution, asbestos and human health claims.
Temperatures in Arizona this week reached