Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

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. Schronce, Geoffrey 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.

A Delaware court recently held in Mattel, Inc. and Fisher Price, Inc. v. XL Insurance America, Inc., et al., that a series of product liability claims dating back to 2013 constituted a single “occurrence” under the toy manufacturer’s and distributor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policies.

The case stemmed from Mattel’s request for defense and indemnity coverage in response to claims that certain toys caused bodily injuries to infants. The CGL coverage tower, which included policies issued by multiple primary, excess, and umbrella insurers, spanned from 2011 to 2020.

The California Privacy Protection Agency and California Attorney General recently announced the formation of a new coalition of state regulators called the Consortium of Privacy Regulators, which includes regulators from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, New Jersey and Oregon.

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.