Help

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

Delaware Supreme Court rules for AIG, Axa in D&O case

Reprints
D&O

The Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously affirmed a lower court ruling and held that American International Group Inc. and Axa SA units were not obligated to indemnify a solar energy company in directors and officers litigation under their claims-made coverage.

Shareholders of Tempe, Arizona-based First Solar Inc. filed a class-action lawsuit in Arizona in 2012, charging the company had misrepresented the reduction of its manufacturing costs, among other allegations, according to court papers in First Solar Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA and XL Specialty Insurance Co.

In March 2014, a number of shareholders opted out of that litigation and filed a second suit alleging various defects and concealments by the company. Solar agreed to pay $19 million to settle the case.

National Union and XL unit XL Specialty denied coverage on the basis that the second suit was essentially identical to the suit filed in 2012, and because the litigation was filed in 2013, there was no coverage under their claims-made policies.

First Solar filed suit against the insurers in October 2020, charging breach of contract. Both insurers filed motions to dismiss the case, and the Delaware Superior Court ruled in the insurers’ favor in June.

The en banc Delaware Supreme Court also ruled in the insurers’ favor, albeit on different grounds. “The Superior Court found that the follow-on action was ‘fundamentally identical’ to the first-filed action and therefore excluded them for coverage under the later-issued polices,” its ruling said.

The Supreme Court ruling said neither the Delaware Supreme Court nor any other jurisdiction have adopted the “fundamentally identical” standard, and that a “relatedness standard” should have been used in judging the case instead.

However, in affirming the lower court, the Supreme Court said that under either standard, “the later-issued insurance policies did not cover the follow-on action.”

Attorneys in the case had no comment or did not respond to a request for comment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Next