BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Insured vs. insured exclusion shields AIG

Insured vs. insured exclusion shields AIG

An American International Group Inc. unit is not obligated to provide a former medical equipment firm officer with indemnification and defense costs in connection with litigation filed against him by his former firm and its executives under the insured-versus-insured exclusion in the company’s directors and officers liability coverage, says a New Jersey appeals court.

Michael Abboud, a former CEO and 40% owner of Staten Island, New York-based Monarch Medical PET Services L.L.C., which provides diagnostic imaging equipment, had first sued Monarch, four firm members and managers and a company officer, stating they had breached their fiduciary duty, among other charges, according to Wednesday’s ruling by the New Jersey Superior Court’s appellate division in Trenton in Michael Abboud v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.

Counterclaims filed by defendants against Mr. Abboud included that he had engaged in self-dealing.

Mr. Abboud sought indemnity and defense costs for the counterclaims under the D&O section of Monarch’s multicoverage policy, according to the ruling.

National Union, a unit of New York-based American International Group Inc., denied Mr. Abboud coverage based on an insured vs. insured exclusion within the coverage’s D&O section.

On appeal, a three-judge panel of the state appeals court unanimously upheld the lower court’s ruling. “There is nothing ambiguous, convoluted, or opaque about this exclusion when interpreted in accord with the (policy’s) definitional provisions,” said the ruling.

“The claims raised against Abboud were brought by Monarch and five of its executives (whose status within the company Abboud does not contest). Therefore, the insured vs. insured exclusion bars these claims.”

Earlier this week, a federal appeals court also ruled that an XL Group Ltd. unit is not obligated to indemnify a bankrupt banking corporation’s liquidation trust under the insured-versus-insured exclusion in its directors and officers liability policy. 


Read Next

  • Crime policy exclusion shields AIG from 3M’s theft losses

    Insurers including an American international Group Inc. unit are not obligated to indemnify 3M Corp. for lost earnings caused by its investment advisers’ “Ponzi scheme" theft under an exclusion in its crime policy, says a federal appeals court in affirming a lower court ruling.