Menu

Cow Manure Meets Insurance Law: Seventh Circuit Addresses Breach of Contract Exclusions in Malpractice Insurance

Appellate & Trial Support   |   October 28, 2019
Download   
Share Page

Errors and omissions (E&O) and directors and officers (D&O) professional liability insurance policies commonly contain breach of contract endorsements that exclude coverage for claims “based upon or arising out of” a breach of contract. Whether this typical breach of contract exclusion is enforceable has now been called into doubt, where they are construed to exclude third-party claims.

In a diversity case applying Wisconsin law, the Seventh Circuit held that such a breach of contract exclusion was so broad, when construed in accordance with Wisconsin’s “arising out of” law, that it swallowed the policy coverage, rendering the E&O policy illusory. It ordered the district court on remand to decide whether and how to reform the policy to meet the reasonable expectations of the insured.

This case concerned a malpractice policy procured by a company called DVO. DVO was hired to design and build an anaerobic digester that would be used to generate electricity from cow manure. When DVO was sued for breach of contract due to allegedly faulty work on the anaerobic digester, its malpractice insurer, Crum & Forster, initially defended DVO but then brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that it did not have a duty to defend DVO, in light of the breach of contract exclusion to coverage.

The insurer argued, and the district court agreed, that coverage under the E&O policy was not illusory because it covered third-party claims. The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument. It explained that Wisconsin courts read “based upon or arising out of” language in breach of contract exclusions broadly, to exclude third-party claims.

The Seventh Circuit also rejected the district court’s alternative holding that, assuming the policy did not cover third-party claims, it could be reformed to do so. The district court said that reforming the policy in this limited way would render the policy effectual rather than illusory. The Seventh Circuit explained, however, that when courts reform an illusory policy, they should focus on the insured’s reasonable expectations in securing the coverage rather than reforming the policy in some more limited way: “The availability of third-party claims is irrelevant unless it is determined to be a part of [the insured’s] reasonable expectation of coverage.”

The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine, in the first instance, whether and how to reform the policy under the appropriate legal standard.

Read the opinion: Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. DVO, Inc., No. 18-2571 (7th Cir. Sept. 23, 2019).


©2020 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Subscribe to Publications

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.