The Delaware Supreme Courtroom has dominated that photo voltaic panel producer First Photo voltaic, which confronted two securities class actions, isn’t entitled to have its insurance coverage insurance policies cowl each as a result of the later-issued coverage excluded protection for associated actions.
The state Supreme Courtroom reached the identical conclusion that the state Superior Courtroom did in its ruling that was appealed by First Photo voltaic. However the two courts used totally different requirements for assessing the relatedness of the 2 actions for the needs of satisfying the exclusion provision.
The Superior Courtroom used a “essentially an identical” customary in concluding that the 2 securities claims have been sufficiently associated to be excluded below the second coverage. The Supreme Courtroom stated {that a} “generic essentially an identical” measure isn’t the proper customary for judging relatedness; moderately, the proper method is to observe the precise language within the insurance policies. In so ruling, the excessive court docket sided with the insurers.
The case (First Photo voltaic v. Nationwide Union Fireplace Insurance coverage Co. and XL Specialty Insurance coverage) entails March 2012 and June 2015 class motion lawsuits filed towards First Photo voltaic alleging that it violated federal securities legal guidelines by making false or deceptive public disclosures.
The plaintiffs within the unique March 2012 swimsuit, generally known as the Smilovits motion, alleged that from April 30, 2008, to February 28, 2012, First Photo voltaic: misrepresented that it “had a successful method for decreasing manufacturing prices so quickly and dramatically as to make solar energy aggressive with fossil fuels;” “perpetuated [its] fraudulent self-portrayal by concealing and misrepresenting the character and extent of main manufacturing and design defects in [its] photo voltaic modules;” misrepresented its financials; artificially inflated its inventory costs; allowed people to interact in insider buying and selling; manipulated the cost-per-watt metrics; and understated its bills.
Nationwide Union Fireplace Insurance coverage Co. supplied insurance coverage protection for the Smilovits motion below a 2011–12 claims-made administrators and officers insurance coverage coverage with a $10 million restrict.
On June 23, 2015, whereas the Smilovits motion was pending, First Photo voltaic stockholders who opted out of the Smilovits motion filed what has been known as the Maverick motion, alleging violations of the identical federal securities legal guidelines because the Smilovits motion, in addition to violations of Arizona statutes and claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
When the plaintiffs filed the Maverick motion in 2015, First Photo voltaic had a $10 million “claims made” main coverage with Nationwide Union for 2014–15 and a $10 million layer of extra protection with XL Specialty Insurance coverage Co. The 2014–15 main coverage excluded protection for “associated claims,” which the coverage outlined as claims “alleging, arising out of, based mostly upon or attributable to” any details or wrongful acts which can be the identical as or associated to these alleged in a declare made towards an Insured.
Each courts decided that the associated declare exclusion barred protection below the 2014–15 insurance policies if the Maverick motion is a associated declare to the Smilovits motion.
At first, First Photo voltaic obtained protection protection for the Maverick motion below its 2011–12 insurance policies. In 2015, First Photo voltaic exhausted all protection below the 2011–12 Nationwide Union coverage. Chubb, the surplus insurer subsequent in line after the 2011–12 Nationwide Union coverage, accepted protection of the Maverick motion as a result of “the brand new Maverick litigation relies on the identical details and circumstances of the beforehand seen Smilovits class motion grievance,” and as such, Chubb handled this Maverick matter as a associated declare. Chubb supplied protection for the Maverick motion because the litigation progressed.
After years of litigation and after incurring greater than $80 million in protection prices, First Photo voltaic settled the Smilovits motion on January 5, 2020, for $350 million. All main and extra insurers below the 2011–12 insurance policies paid their coverage limits.
Having settled the Smilovits motion and exhausted all protection below the 2011–12 insurance policies, First Photo voltaic started to arbitrate a settlement of the Maverick motion in search of protection below the 2014–15 main coverage and the XL Specialty coverage. After the insurers denied protection below the insurance policies, First Photo voltaic filed swimsuit within the Superior Courtroom asking for declaratory aid that the insurers have been obligated to supply protection below the insurance policies.
The courts centered on the relatedness of the Smilovits and Maverick actions and whether or not the Maverick motion fell throughout the main coverage exclusion for associated claims.
First Photo voltaic argued that the Smilovits motion and the Maverick motion weren’t sufficiently associated as a result of they concerned totally different operative details—totally different plaintiffs, conduct, causes of motion, and time intervals.
The insurers responded that the Maverick motion arose out of the Smilovits motion and raised the identical claims towards the identical events in all materials respects.
Counting on earlier instances, the Superior Courtroom reasoned {that a} grievance is “associated to” or “aris[es] out of” a earlier grievance if the claims are “essentially an identical.” Essentially an identical lawsuits, in keeping with this court docket, require the “similar topic” and “widespread details, circumstances, transactions, occasions, and selections.” The Superior Courtroom famous that there should be greater than “thematic similarities” for complaints to be sufficiently associated below comparable coverage language as a result of the phrases “arising out of” indicate a causal connection.
The Superior Courtroom concluded that the Maverick motion was “essentially an identical” to the Smilovits motion in that the lawsuits stemmed from the identical unique swimsuit, have been towards “an identical defendants,” overlapped in time, contained allegations of the identical securities legislation violations, and relied on the identical particular disclosures. Additionally, the court docket discovered that the underlying wrongful conduct— allegedly inflating First Photo voltaic’s inventory worth by misrepresenting cost-per-watt metrics and falsifying monetary studies—was the identical. Whereas there have been some variations, together with the idea of damages claimed by the Maverick plaintiffs, the Superior Courtroom held that the variations didn’t outweigh the similarities and thus Maverick was excluded as a associated declare below the insurance policies.
On attraction, First Photo voltaic argued that the Superior Courtroom dominated incorrectly, claiming that the actions merely shared “thematic similarities” not “elementary id.”
The insurers, nonetheless, countered that the Maverick motion meets the “essentially an identical” customary as a result of it’s directed to the identical wrongful act and fraudulent scheme because the Smilovits motion. They additional argued that the essentially an identical customary had been taken out of context by the Superior Courtroom. In response to the insurers, the that means of “associated to” ought to come from the language of the insurance coverage coverage.
In response, First Photo voltaic contended that the plain language of the first coverage’s relatedness customary would render protection “illusory.”
On attraction, the Supreme Courtroom stated it agreed with the insurers that the Superior Courtroom’s use of the “essentially an identical” customary disregards the plain language of the insurance coverage coverage. The court docket stated that the error will be traced to a misunderstanding over the that means of “arising out of” or “associated to” for protection of associated complaints and claims. Whether or not a declare relates again to an earlier declare is determined by the language of the coverage, not a generic “essentially an identical” customary, the excessive court docket said.
The first coverage’s broad associated declare provision states {that a} associated declare is a “declare alleging, arising out of, based mostly upon or attributable to” any details or wrongful acts which can be the identical as or associated to people who have been alleged in a declare made towards an insured.
Thus, the query earlier than the Supreme Courtroom on attraction grew to become whether or not the Maverick motion raised claims that “aris[e] out of, [are] based mostly upon or attributable to” any details or wrongful acts “which can be the identical as or associated to” the Smilovits motion.
The excessive court docket discovered that each actions are based mostly on the identical alleged misconduct—First Photo voltaic’s misrepresentations concerning the cost-per-watt of its solar energy. The court docket assembled a side-by-side comparability of the 2 complaints to make its level that whereas there could be minor variations between the claims, these weren’t significant to the relatedness inquiry:
“In different phrases, each actions allege that First Photo voltaic misrepresented its potential to attain grid parity. Each actions allege that First Photo voltaic hid defects within the design and manufacturing of modules and panels. Each actions allege that First Photo voltaic manipulated its prices, together with cost-per-watt metrics. Each actions allege that First Photo voltaic issued false monetary studies in violation of GAAP. Each actions allege that First Photo voltaic’s deceptions got here to gentle on February 28, 2012.”
Though the actions should not an identical of their claims or proof, “absolute id isn’t required,” the court docket discovered.
Utilizing the first coverage’s associated declare definition, the Maverick motion raised claims “alleging, arising out of, based mostly upon or attributable to any details or wrongful acts which can be the identical as or associated to these” raised within the Smilovits motion, the court docket stated in concluding that the Maverick declare is excluded from protection and affirming the decrease court docket’s ruling.
