The Texas court in Oceans Healthcare, LLC v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1437955 (E.D. Tx. 3/30/19) (appealed file), held that the subpoena alleged a wrongful act under the policy because the subpoena sufficiently alleged violations of the false claims act. The subpoena had sought documents “in connection with an investigation into . . . possible false claims act violations . . .” On other grounds the court held that the policy did not provide coverage. In this D&O case, the federal government issued a subpoena to the insured corporation seeking documents in a qui tam action, alleging that the corporation had submitted false and fraudulent payment claims to Medicare/Medicaid. The insured submitted a claim to its D&O insurer, seeking coverage for the expenses that the corporation incurred in responding to the government subpoena. The insurer denied the request for reimbursement, arguing that the government subpoena was not a “claim” inasmuch as the subpoena did not seek relief, but rather, sought information. The court rejected the insurer’s argument, finding that the subpoena sought non-monetary relief under the policy. Under the D&O policy, a claim was “a written demand against any insured for monetary damages or non-monetary or injunctive relief.” The policy did not define the term “relief.”
COURT FINDS THAT A GOVERNMENT SUBPOENA SEEKING DOCUMENTS CONSTITUTED A CLAIM FOR NON-MONETARY RELIEF UNDER A D&O POLICY
On Behalf of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert | Jun 18, 2020 | Medical Malpractice
Categories
- Bad Faith (28)
- Damage Coverage (3)
- Discharged Attorney (1)
- Firm News (61)
- Injuries (15)
- Insurance Law (147)
- Liability (16)
- Medical Malpractice (5)
- Volunteer Defense (1)
Archives
- April 2022 (2)
- March 2022 (7)
- February 2022 (2)
- December 2021 (4)
- November 2021 (2)
- September 2021 (4)
- August 2021 (2)
- July 2021 (4)
- June 2021 (4)
- May 2021 (3)
- April 2021 (5)
- March 2021 (2)
- February 2021 (3)
- January 2021 (4)
- December 2020 (5)
- November 2020 (3)
- October 2020 (4)
- September 2020 (3)
- August 2020 (4)
- July 2020 (4)
- June 2020 (4)
- May 2020 (4)
- April 2020 (5)
- March 2020 (2)
- February 2020 (3)
- January 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (3)
- November 2019 (3)
- October 2019 (4)
- September 2019 (4)
- August 2019 (3)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (4)
- May 2019 (5)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (3)
- February 2019 (4)
- January 2019 (3)
- December 2018 (3)
- November 2018 (4)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (4)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (4)
- June 2018 (4)
- May 2018 (5)
- April 2018 (4)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (4)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (3)
- November 2017 (4)
- October 2017 (4)
- September 2017 (4)
- August 2017 (4)
- July 2017 (4)
- June 2017 (5)
- May 2017 (4)
- April 2017 (4)
- March 2017 (5)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (5)
- November 2016 (4)
- October 2016 (4)
- September 2016 (4)
- August 2016 (5)
- July 2016 (4)
- June 2016 (1)
Recent Posts
- DEFENSE COSTS REIMBURSEMENT CONSIDERED BY NEVADA COURT
- “SEWERAGE” NOT REQUIRED TO INVOKE BACK-UP AND OVERFLOW FROM SEWER EXCLUSION
- TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT INSURANCE POLICY’S APPRAISAL CLAUSE ALLOWS CAUSATION DETERMINATIONS
- TO ESTABLISH BAD FAITH FAILURE TO SETTLE, IN CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE BOTH THAT A REASONABLE SETTLEMENT DEMAND WAS MADE, IN ADDITION TO UNREASONABLE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER
Learn More About Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert
- Teaching
- Education and Scholastic Activities
- Judicial Law Clerkships, Internships, Boards and Certifications
- American Law Institute
- American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel
- Arizona Insurance Institute
- Professional Recognition
- Books Published
- Published Case Reviews
- Academic Journals and Law Reviews
- Other Professional Publications
- Speaker/Presentations
- Professional Activities

