Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

NCAA March Madness tournaments are among the most anticipated and exciting events in American sports, drawing millions of viewers and generating significant economic activity. But the massive popularity of the tournaments comes with risks that can affect participants, venues, sponsors, and fans. From injuries to property damage and event-related cancellations, this post explores the potential risks and the insurance products available to mitigate the risks associated with major sporting events, concerts, or festivals.

A Delaware trial court recently applied the newly minted “meaningful linkage” standard to conclude that multiple lawsuits concerning the merger of CBS and Viacom are not “related” in the context of directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance. The decision in National Amusements, Inc. v. Endurance American Specialty Insurance Co., Case No. N22C-06-018-SKR CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 17, 2025), illustrates the fact-intensive nature of the “relatedness” inquiry and how litigants can expect courts to examine the issues under the Delaware standard.

The trend of Delaware court decisions favoring policyholders continues with a favorable ruling in AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance Company, et al. The Delaware trial court found that AMC’s settlement payment, made in the form of AMC shares valued at $99.3 million, qualified as a covered “Loss” under its directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance policy. This ruling is noteworthy for a variety of reasons, particularly because it establishes that non-traditional forms of currency, like stock, can be a covered “Loss” under D&O policies.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is en vogue. As it rapidly reshapes industries, companies are racing to integrate and market AI-driven solutions and products. But how much is too much? Some companies are finding out the hard way.

The legal risks associated with AI, especially those facing corporate leadership, are growing as quickly as the technology itself. As we explained in a recent post, directors and officers risk personal liability, both for disclosing and failing to disclose how their businesses are using AI. Two recent securities class action lawsuits illustrate the risks associated with AI-related misrepresentations, underscoring the need for management to have a clear and accurate understanding of how the business is using AI and the importance of ensuring adequate insurance coverage for AI-related liabilities.

The New York Commercial Division, the specialized arm of the New York State Supreme Court composed of justices experienced in handling complex civil matters, recently amended its rules to clarify how actions seeking equitable or declaratory relief will be valued for purposes of meeting the Commercial Division’s monetary thresholds. See AO/038/25 (Jan. 28, 2025).

Still feeling the love from Valentine’s Day, this 2024 Year in Review highlights the most swoon-worthy coverage decisions of 2024 and offers a glimpse of the future of insurance coverage litigation in 2025 and beyond.

In 2024, D&O coverage and core insurance law principles were the true heartthrobs of the year, while rulings on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues showed that insurance disputes can arise in any situation. But the real cupid’s arrow? Policy interpretation—still the key to unlocking these cases. As we reflect on the year, this edition of our Year in Review highlights the most love-worthy coverage decisions of 2024 and examines the evolving landscape of insurance coverage litigation heading into 2025.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit affirmed fraud convictions for Theranos’ former CEO, Elizabeth Holmes, and former COO, Ramesh Balwani, upholding an order finding both defendants personally liable for $452 million in restitution to various Theranos investors. While it remains to be seen whether the embattled executives will pursue further appeals to the US Supreme Court, the years of litigation and appeals following Theranos’s untimely demise in 2018 highlight the importance of directors and officers having robust “final adjudication” language in conduct exclusions found in all D&O liability policies.

It has been nearly two decades since Illinois introduced the first biometric information privacy law in the country in 2008, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Since then, litigation relating to biometric information privacy laws has mushroomed, and the insurance industry has responded with increasingly broad exclusions for claims stemming from the litigation. A recent Illinois Appellate Court decision in Ohio Security Ins. Co. and the Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wexford Home Corp., 2024 IL App (1st) 232311-U, demonstrates this ongoing evolution.   

An Alaska federal court recently dismissed a construction company’s lawsuit, accusing a D&O insurer of bad faith refusal to provide coverage for an email spoofing scheme that resulted in nearly $2 million in fraudulent wire transfers. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc., v. Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am., No. 3:24-cv-00259 (D. Alaska, Nov. 11, 2024). While the case was voluntarily dismissed before the D&O insurer responded to the complaint, the policyholder’s allegations tell a familiar story and highlight several areas of dispute that companies face when navigating the fallout from cyber incidents.

Analysis of “relatedness” in directors and officers liability insurance claims has shifted over time in Delaware. In last week’s decision in Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Insurance Appeals, Case Nos. 154, 2024 and 157, 2024 (Del. Feb. 4, 2025), the Delaware Supreme Court adopted a “meaningful linkage” standard for relatedness analysis in overturning the trial court’s holding on relatedness. Related claims is an inherently unpredictable and fact-specific issue, and the Alexion decision provides further guidance to Delaware policyholders on how to navigate those disputes in the future.