“The recent ruling by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Federal Ins. Co. v. Sandusky elicited mixed emotions,” writes Brendan T. Fitzpatrick, a partner in Goldberg Segalla’s Global Insurance Services Practice Group.
Looking at the decision from a purely coverage point of view, Brendan notes, many “wondered whether this decision could ominously portend difficulties for insureds that procured Directors and Officers coverage (D&O). In other words, could this decision be used to deny those that are rightly entitled to D&O coverage?”
In this article, Brendan analyzes the judge’s rulings in the highly publicized Federal Ins. Co. v. Sandusky decision to explore whether the case will bring about any shift in coverage interpretation.