Delaware Corporations May Use Captives to Insure Non-Indemnifiable Loss
Time 4 Minute Read
Categories: D&O

The Delaware legislature recently passed an amendment to the statute governing Delaware corporations’ ability to indemnify directors and officers. That statute—8 Del. Law 145—provides that Delaware corporations “may” purchase “insurance” to insure liability of their directors, officers, employees, and agents “whether or not the corporation would have the power to indemnify such person against such liability.” The recent amendment clarifies that “insurance” includes captive insurance. It states: “For purposes of this subsection, insurance shall include any insurance provided directly or indirectly (including pursuant to any fronting or reinsurance arrangement) by or through a captive insurance company organized and licensed in compliance with the laws of any jurisdiction . . . .”

The amendment also sets forth three additional requirements that a Delaware corporation must follow if it elects to use captive insurance in this manner.

  • First, the captive insurance policy must exclude coverage for loss arising out of “financial advantage to which [a covered individual] was not legally entitled” or “deliberate criminal or fraudulent act of [the covered individual],” but only if there is a final, non-appealable adjudication finding that conduct and the Delaware statutes otherwise allow for indemnification. This is consistent with exclusions in most D&O insurance policies.
  • Second, the decision to pay under the captive insurance must “be made by an independent claims administrator,” by a majority of directors that are not subject to the claim at issue (or a committee of those directors designated by a majority of those directors), by independent legal counsel, or by stockholders. This helps avoid potential conflicts of interest that could arise if a captive insurance company was deciding whether its captive D&O policy insures particular directors and officers, particularly given that leadership of captive insurance companies often overlaps with the leadership of the captive’s parent company.
  • Third, the amendment also mandates that if notice is required to stockholders about the dismissal or settlement of any claim, then that notice must include notice that the payment will be made under the captive insurance. This promotes transparency in how the captive insurance company is providing coverage.

The amendment also states that any corporation using captive insurance in this regard will not cause the corporation to be subject to the insurance provisions in the Delaware code. And it clarifies that the captive insurance can include fronting or reinsurance arrangements and that the captive insurer can be domiciled in Delaware or any other state.

It remains to be seen whether this amendment to the existing statutory framework is truly meaningful, or even necessary, given that captives arguably fell within the meaning of “insurance” already permitted in Section 145. While the language of Section 145 applies to captives organized in any state (not necessarily in Delaware), one need look no further than Delaware’s existing Captive Insurance Program as evidence that Delaware has recognized the formation and use of captives, including for D&O insurance, dating back to at least 2005 when the Delaware General Assembly modernized the state’s captive laws.

Moreover, Delaware captives, like all captives, will face the same capital requirements, licensing and regulatory hurdles, and similar challenges that remain unchanged following the amendment. Companies must balance these drawbacks against the potential upside in using captives as an alternative risk vehicle, which can include tax benefits, insulation from traditional insurance market volatility, and other cost savings.

In any event, the amendment provides helpful clarification about what kind of insurance Delaware corporations are allowed to use, and time will tell whether this leads to any substantial increase in Delaware corporations’ use of captive insurance for D&O liabilities. Regardless, the amendment is another example of Delaware clarifying its broad protections afforded to directors and officers at Delaware corporations, which is one of many reasons companies incorporate in Delaware and why Delaware is viewed as a leader in sophisticated and current corporate laws to enforce those protections.

  • Partner

    Geoff works closely with corporate policyholders and their directors and officers to resolve high-stakes insurance disputes. He leads the firm’s directors and officers (D&O) insurance and executive protection practice.

    As a ...

  • Counsel

    Patrick counsels clients on all aspects of insurance and reinsurance coverage. He assists clients in obtaining appropriate coverage and represents clients in resolving disputes over coverage, including in litigation and ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

Colleges and universities have long sat at the crossroads of freedom of expression and societal change. As campus activism surges, they face growing pressure to protect their institutional missions while upholding students’ individual rights in an era of heightened scrutiny.

Time 1 Minute Read

In Illinois National Insurance Company v. Harman International Industries Incorporated, No. N22C-05-098 (Del. 2026), the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed D&O coverage for a $28 million settlement of a securities class action, finding the policies’ “bump-up” exclusion inapplicable to the settlement.

In a recent legal update, Hunton attorneys Steven Haas, Johnathon E. SchronceGeoffrey B. Fehling, and Madalyn Moore discuss important takeaways from the Harman decision for policyholders who find themselves embroiled in M&A litigation. The decision underscores the continued relevance of bump-up exclusions, how those exclusions can lead to coverage disputes involving M&A litigation, and the importance of policyholders’ awareness of potential bump-up coverage issues when placing or renewing D&O coverage, pursuing transactions, and defending and settling deal-related claims.

Time 1 Minute Read

If recent years have taught insurance practitioners anything, it is that the most consequential coverage disputes rarely turn on novelty alone. In 2025, courts continued to resolve high‑stakes insurance disputes by returning to first principles—examining when claims are related, how losses and occurrences are defined and aggregated, and how policy language allocates risk across time and conduct. D&O coverage and other core insurance law issues again occupied center stage, while decisions in property, cyber, and liability disputes reinforced a familiar theme: policy interpretation remains the decisive factor in determining whether coverage is available in an increasingly complex claims environment. As the decisions discussed below demonstrate, 2025 confirmed that even as risks evolve, coverage disputes remain grounded in careful, policy‑specific analysis.

Time 5 Minute Read

Directors and officers liability insurance is first and foremost protection against personal exposure of boards and management who are targeted in claims challenging their decisions in running the company. That’s why it is surprising how often dedicated “Side A” coverage—insurance coverage, subject to no self-insured retention, available exclusively for the benefit of directors and officers who are not indemnified by the company—is overlooked in placing and renewing D&O insurance programs. One recent Texas bankruptcy ruling, In re First Brands Group, LLC, No. 25-90399 (CML) (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2026), demonstrates just how powerful Side A protection can be. There, against strong objections from the creditors’ committee, the bankruptcy court granted motions by numerous former executives seeking relief from the automatic stay to recover D&O insurance proceeds, unlocking millions in Side A coverage to defend against private and governmental claims asserted in connection with the bankruptcy.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page