Article ID: 0295b6dbccc027411f2a240ce6bcf29d6e4b8f4de03a832b3aa7aaebcaa4ed83
Source ID: secondary:businessinsurance.com
Published At: -
Extraction Method: bs4_heuristic
URL: https://www.businessinsurance.com/insurer-must-face-do-coverage-claims-over-1-77m-judgment/
Body Text
Insurer must face D&O coverage claims over $1.77M judgment - Business Insurance Skip to content Register for free Search Search Log In Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Insurer must face D&O coverage claims over $1.77M judgment by Richard Sine Claims Disputes , D&O May 22, 2026 An AmTrust Financial Services unit that issued a private company management liability policy to a North Carolina health care firm cannot avoid a coverage dispute over a $1.77 million judgment entered against two of the firm’s executives, a federal judge ruled. In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Woody et al., decided May 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Chief Judge Martin Reidinger denied a motion by Associated Industries Insurance Company to dismiss counterclaims brought by HE Inc., a company seeking to collect on the judgment. The underlying dispute traces to a deal gone wrong. HE alleged that Stephen Woody and David Fann, the CEO and president respectively of Asheville-based Avadim Health made misrepresentations to induce HE to convert $1.39 million of Avadim’s debt into stock and defer collection of another $1.8 million pending an initial public offering that never materialized. A Buncombe County jury found in HE’s favor on claims of negligent misrepresentation and unfair and deceptive trade practices, and in March 2025 entered a judgment of $1.77 million — including treble damages — against Mr. Woody and Mr. Fann. The executives sought coverage under Avadim’s directors and officers liability policy. The insurer refused to pay and filed suit seeking a declaration that it owed nothing, arguing three policy defenses: an improper advantage exclusion, a carve-out from the definition of “loss” for restitution and disgorgement and a separate carve-out for contractually owed amounts. The court rejected all three. On the improper advantage exclusion — which requires a final adjudication that the policyholder gained something to which it was not entitled — the judge found that “nothing in the judgment or verdict in the underlying action indicates” that Mr. Woody or Mr. Fann personally profited from their misrepresentations. On the restitution carve-out, the court noted that “the Judgment itself explicitly labeled the damage award as ‘compensatory,’ not restitutionary.” On the contract exclusion, the court found that HE never claimed that the executive’s conduct resulted in a breach of an agreement with Avadim when negotiating the debt settlement. Related News TV doc scrubs in for real workforce crisis May 22, 2026 Church Mutual names former Zurich exec CFO May 22, 2026 Inszone acquires Michigan-based agency May 22, 2026 Court upholds shoulder treatment in comp dispute over preexisting condition May 22, 2026 Generali’s Q1 premiums climb 7% May 22, 2026 European reinsurers’ earnings rise despite revenue drop: Fitch May 22, 2026 Sava Re’s business volume grows on reinsurance gains May 22, 2026 Bishop Street names U.K. underwriting chief May 22, 2026 Acrisure to lay off 2,250, citing AI May 22, 2026 Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in Business Insurance is a singular, authoritative news and information source for executives focused upon risk management, risk transfer and risk financing. Never miss important news: Become a Business Insurance Online subscriber today Subscribe Now Information About Us Contact Advertise Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Copyright 2026. BUSINESS INSURANCE HOLDINGS Member, Beacon International Group, Ltd.
Metadata (JSON)
{
"score": 13.633333333333333
}