today:
86
yesterday:
177
Total:
1,001,003

Articles about Careers

D&O라고 하는것이 바로 회사의 중책을 맡은 사람들의 개인적 Liability 로부터 보호하기 위하여 들어 놓는 보험입니다. Directors and Officers의 List를 자주 update하는것도 중요하고, 또 Directors라는 title은 없지만, 회사의 중책을 맡아 결정적인 영향을 할 경우에도 List에 올려놓은 것이 중요하겠습니다.

 

먼저도 말씀드렸던 것처럼, 회사에서 employee로서 고용되어 일을 한다 해도, 법적 소송건을 보면, 대부분, 해당 Manager 와 회사를 상대로 한꺼번에 소송을 제기 하기 때문에, 개인적으로 이 보험에 가입되어 있지 않다면, 개인적인 재산이 위험에 노출되어 있는 것입니다.

 

따라서 대부분의 회사들이 EPLI와 D&O Liability Insurance는 함께 들어 놓고 있습니다.

자세한 내용은 아래 참조하시기 바랍니다.

 

 

 

Directors and Officers Liability Insurance (often called D&O) is liability insurance payable to the directors and officers of a company, or to the organization(s) itself, to cover damages or defense costs in the event they suffer such losses as a result of a lawsuit for alleged wrongful acts while acting in their capacity as directors and officers for the organization. Such coverage can extend to defense costs arising out of criminal and regulatory investigations/trials as well; in fact, often civil and criminal actions are brought against directors/officers simultaneously. It has become closely associated with broader management liability insurance, which covers liabilities of the corporation as well as the personal liabilities for the directors and officers of the corporation.[1]

Under the "traditional" D&O policy applied to "public companies" (those having securities trading under national securities exchanges), there are three (3) insuring clauses. These insuring clauses are termed: Insuring Clause 1 (Side-A); Insuring Clause 2 (Side-B); and Insuring Clause 3 (Side-C). Contemporary (competitive) D&O policies also provide for Insuring Clause 4 (Side-D), which provides for a $250,000 sublimit for investigative costs coverage related to a shareholder derivative demand.

Side-A (Insuring Clause 1) provides coverage to individual directors and officers when not indemnified by the corporation (as a result of state law or financial capability of the corporation) Side-B (Insuring Clause 2) provides coverage for the corporation when it indemnifies the directors and officers (corporate reimbursement) Side-C (Insuring Clause 3) provides coverage to the corporation itself for securities claims brought against it

Note - more extensive (broader) coverage can be obtained for individual directors and officers under a Broad Form  Side-A DIC ("Difference in Conditions") policy purchased to not only provide excess Side-A coverage but also to fill the gaps in coverage under the traditional policy, respond when the traditional policy does not, protect the individual directors and officers in the face of U.S.  bankruptcy courts from wrongfully deeming the D&O policy a part of the bankruptcy estate and otherwise more fully protect the personal assets of individual directors and officers.

At its roots, D&O insurance insures "behavior" in that the decisions of directors and officers are the matters which often lead to covered claims. That is, an incorrect decision often leads to shareholder discontent and, thus, a lawsuit against the directors and officers who made the decision. State law typically protects the directors and officers from liability (particularly exculpatory provisions under state law relating to directors) but this does not mean that actions are not brought by private plaintiffs (aggravated by the loss of money and seeking a quick payout from insurance proceeds). As such, even innocent errors in judgment by executives will bring D&O insurance into the forefront of the matter; especially because most "D&O" claims are settled before going to trial. The key, apparently, is the motion to dismiss stage of civil litigation (at least in the U.S.A.).

Typical sources of claims include shareholders, shareholder-derivative actions, customers, regulators (including those that would bring civil and criminal charges), and competitors (for anti-trust or unfair trade practice allegations). The extent of coverage is dramatically dictated by the fact the company is publicly traded or privately held. For instance, publicly traded companies (themselves) are only covered for securities claims.

In terms of basic state corporate law (at least in the U.S.A.), directors and officers of a corporation can be liable if they damage the corporation by breaching their duties and contracts to the corporation, mix personal and business assets, or fail to disclose conflicts of interest. In the United States, under state corporate law, corporations are often mandated to indemnify directors and officers of companies incorporated in that state in order to encourage people to take the positions. That being said, there exist extensive situations in which either the corporation is only permitted to indemnify the director or officer or the company is explicitly forbidden from indemnifying such director or officer. Liabilities which aren't indemnified by the corporation are potentially covered by certain types of D&O insurance (particularly Side-A Broad Form DIC policies).[2] However, the policies have exclusions and must be read carefully.

D&O insurance is usually purchased by the company itself, even when it is for the sole benefit of directors and officers. Reasons for doing so are many, but commonly would assist a company in attracting and retaining directors. Where a country's legislation prevents the company from purchasing the insurance, a premium split between the directors and the company is often done, so as to demonstrate that the directors have paid a portion of the premium. Problems related to income tax liability may come into play when a corporation avoids country specific liability law in order to protect its individual directors and officers through insurance.

A common misperception of D&O insurance is that it makes directors or officers able to engage in acts they know to be wrong; this is not the case. Intentional illegal acts or any illegal gains/profits obtained by directors/officers are not covered under most D&O insurance policies; coverage would only extend to "wrongful acts" as defined under the policy, which may include certain acts, omissions, misstatements while acting as a director/officer of the organization. Exclusionary language, however, would not provide coverage for fraud, illegal profits/gains, or intentional/wanton illegal conduct by such director/officer (as examples).

The basic principle underlying the acceptance of D&O insurance is that companies (and their shareholders) are best served by knowledgeable directors and officers who take strategic risks based upon the information reasonably available to them at the time the decision is made, without the threat of personal liability. By doing so, it is believed, corporations are better able to attract qualified, intelligent, and reasonable directors and officers to manage the operations of the company. Not only would this result in better returns for shareholders but also benefit society in general (due to the increased productivity, jobs created, and advancement of products due to such calculated business decisions). Under the law of states in the U.S.A. and most capitalistic based economies, directors and officers are not "insurers" of their business decisions made in furtherance of the company they serve. This includes the advancement of not only the shareholders, but also the company itself, its customers, and the constituents of the company (such as employees, a particular town, community, charity etc.). In addition to D&O insurance (which fills the gaps), state law ensures that reasonable, calculated, and well-processed decisions (see "business judgment rule"), that are made by the executives of a company, will be made without fear of personal financial loss should their well thought-out plan not come to fruition. As practical and sound as that proposition may sound, it is still within the power of states and individual companies to deny such executives indemnification for claims that arise out of their well intended efforts. As a result, D&O insurance exists.

In contemporary times (particularly in the U.S.), directors and officers (especially those most sought out by shareholders due to their ability to produce results) are intimately concerned with a company's directors & officers liability insurance program. Under state law, their personal assets are at risk (not to mention their hard-earned reputation). Thus, companies with quality D&O insurance coverage are the most suited to attract the best directors and officers to serve the corporation. Ultimately, it is a cost/benefit analysis...you get what you pay for...


The leaders in the provision of Directors & Officers Liability Insurance include: Chartis, Chubb Corp., The Travelers Companies, ACE Limited, XL Group, Zurich Financial Services, HCC Insurance Holdings, The Hartford, and CNA Financial(among many others).

In the United Kingdom the majority of contracts are facilitated on behalf of policyholders by intermediary brokers. Leading players in this field include Marsh, Willis, Howden and the Lark Group.

Berkshire Hathaway, the holding company managed by Warren Buffett, does not purchase D&O insurance for its directors, unlike most similar companies. Warren Buffett believes that the directors should face consequences of their mistakes the way that other shareholders do.[3]

 

Resources: http://en.wikipedia.org

 

** 상기 내용은 무단 복제를 금합니다.

** 상기 내용에 따른 모든 Liability 본인에게 있음을 알려드립니다.

** Counsel은 법률 자문이 아닙니다. 따라서 소송에 관련된 건은 전문 변호사와 상담하시는것이 좋겠습니다.

** 추가 질문이 있는 경우에는 아래에 댓들을 달아주시면 회신드리겠습니다.

 

No. Subject Date Views
81 Family/Medical Leave 임신/출산 혹은 아픈 가족을 돌봐야 하는데 직장을 안전하게 보장하며 쉴수 있는 방법이 있을까? 2011.11.21 567
80 California Overtime Violations FAQ - What is considered a "work week?" 2012.07.07 564
79 Worker's Comp Insurance 직장에서 다쳤을 경우 어떤 보상을 받을수 있을까요? 2011.11.19 560
78 ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 2012.01.15 554
77 미국내 회사들의 평균 Sick Days ( 병가)는 얼마나 주고 있는것일까? 2011.11.30 536
76 OSHA Question 2. What is an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard? 2011.12.24 536
» Directors and Officers Liability Insurance (often called D&O) 2012.01.08 534
74 OSHA 300 Log Posting 2012.02.18 533
73 What is E-Verify? 2011.12.10 532
72 FMLA - Employer Responsibilities 2012.01.15 530
71 Sexual Harassment Charges-EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997 - FY 2010 2011.12.27 528
70 What if I lost my job and cannot work because of the disaster or emergency? 만약에 재난으로 실직을 당했다면 그래도 실직수당을 받을 수 있을까? 2011.12.13 526
69 Liability and Relationships - Office Relationships-Supervisors & Subordinates 2011.12.28 524
68 Rate Your Vacation - 우리회사의 Vacation은 좋은 편인가? Benchmarking해보셔요! 2011.11.30 520
67 Employee vs. Independent Contractor – Seven Tips for Business Owners 2011.12.18 520
66 직업학교 학비 지원 2011.12.16 519
65 FMLA - Definition of Serious Health Condition 2012.01.15 518
64 Unpaid Lunch Break & Paid Smoke Breaks? 2011.11.30 510
63 Vacation을 아예 안준다면 법적으로 문제가 될까요? 2011.11.30 505
62 Types of Sexual Harassment - Quid Pro Quo/ Hostile Work environment 2011.12.27 505
61 Sexual Harassment- Key Elements of Investigation Procedures 2011.12.31 489
60 OSHA Question 1. What are employers' responsibilities under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act? 2011.12.24 487
59 Wage Order No. 17 - CA 2012.02.22 483
58 미국내 회사들의 평균 Vacation은 얼마나 주고 있는것일까? 2011.11.30 472
57 When should Form I-9 Be Used? 2011.12.10 472
56 Wage Order No. 16 - CA 2012.02.22 470
55 Employee Benefits in US provided by DOL Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011.11.30 467
54 EPL Insurances - How to prevent employee lawsuits? 2012.01.08 461
53 Employee Benefit Liability Insurance 2012.01.08 458
52 What are the eligibility requirements? 2011.12.13 457
51 Investigation Interview Protocol for Employee Interview 2011.12.31 455
50 401K - Fidelity Bonds 2012.01.08 452
49 SDI - 몸이 아파서 직장을 못나가게 되었을때, 무슨 혜택이 있을까? 2011.11.21 440
48 Wage Order No. 14 - CA 2012.02.22 440
47 Wage Order No. 15 - CA 2012.02.22 432
46 What is Fiduciary Liability Insurance? 2012.01.08 427
45 이런 Benefit이 있다면? 2011.11.30 426
44 What is Flexible Spending Account (FSA)? 2011.12.22 424
43 HR - 아무리해도 강조해도 지나치지 않는것!! 2012.01.08 422
42 SB 459: Penalties for employers who misclassify employees as independent contractors. 2011.12.18 421
41 미국내 회사들의 평균 Holiday는 얼마나 주고 있는것일까? 2011.11.30 419
40 What is I-9? 2011.12.10 417
39 Litigation Cases - Misclassification (Overtime을 주지 않는 salary로 구분한 경우의 법적 소송건) 2011.11.28 412
38 FMLA - Eligibility Requirements 2012.01.15 411
37 Litigation Cases (Overtime을 주지 않는 salary로 잘못 구분한 경우의 법적 소송건- 2) 2011.11.28 409
36 Best Practices for Limiting Employer Liability (가장중요한 대책들입니다.) 2012.01.02 408
35 Wage Order No. 13 - CA 2012.02.22 408
34 Examples of a hostile work environment 2011.12.28 406
33 Misclassification의 경우 Penalty는 얼마나 될까? 2011.11.28 404
32 I-9 Form: The Rules of Use 2011.12.10 398