El Tribunal Supremo de Delaware resolvió que una exclusión por servicios profesionales no impedía la cobertura D&O porque la reclamación no guardaba una conexión significativa con dichos servicios.
1 min read
La incorporación de una exclusión de servicios profesionales es habitual en las pólizas de seguros de D&O para instituciones financieras, incluidos bancos, gestores de fondos y compañías de seguros. Normalmente, esta exclusión se redacta utilizando el término “derivado de” (arising out of).
The term “arising out of” is intended to broaden the scope of the professional services exclusion, ensuring that claims intended to be covered under a financial institution’s professional liability (often referred to as the FIPI policy) aren’t inadvertently included. While the intention behind this is clear, applying such an exclusion, especially the term “arising out of,” can pose challenges.
Un fallo reciente de la Corte Suprema de Delaware en el caso ACE American Ins. Co. v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. destaca uno de estos desafíos.
In this case, the court had to decide whether a False Claims Act suit “arising out of” Guaranteed Rate’s professional services, to determine whether the professional services exclusion in the D&O policy would apply. The Delaware Supreme Court concluded that the act of certifying mortgages to the government did not fall under the professional service category. As a result, the suit wasn’t a consequence of Guaranteed Rate’s professional services, and the Management Liability Policy provided coverage.
This decision emphasizes the crucial role of clear and precise language in policy drafting. The phrase “arising out of” was interpreted not to allow the insurer to exclude activities that are merely tangentially related. A “meaningful linkage” between the stipulated conditions in the contract is required.
Para profundizar en este tema, lea el artículo completo:
