D&O: Is it Covered? Disgorgement, Restitution, Ill Gotten Gains

By Susanne Murray, Executive Vice President, Alliant

Some D&O policies expressly say that Loss does not include restitution or other restitutionary amounts such as disgorgement, claw-back reimbursement, return of ill-gotten gains or other amounts required or demanded to be paid back (collectively restitution for purposes of this note).

Although all of these terms are used interchangeably at times, they can generally be distinguished as follows:

Restitution – returning, restoring or preserving money or other property, or the value of such other property, to the proper owner.

Disgorgement – the act of giving up something (such as profits illegally obtained) on demand or by legal compulsion. This is an equitable remedy designed to deter future violations and to deprive wrongdoers of the proceeds of their wrongful conduct.

Reimbursement of amounts that are considered to be ill-gotten gain – amounts obtained by dishonest means.

Claw-back amounts –  such amounts are most notably laid out in Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (recovery of certain compensation required because of misconduct) and Section 954 of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (recovery of erroneously awarded compensation without the misconduct requirement).

The definition of covered loss differs by Insurer and insurance policy so some cover a wider array of costs than others (for example, plaintiff’s attorney fees are sometimes specifically listed in the definition).  Most generally include the following amounts as covered loss:

  • Damages, judgments, pre- and post-judgment interest, settlements and defense costs;
  • Punitive, exemplary and multiplied damages;
  • Certain types of fines and penalties, such as limited Foreign Corrupt Practices Act civil fines and penalties and similar anti-bribery laws within and outside the U.S.  In some instances, a broader range of fines and penalties may be insured.

Recent D&O policies may also expressly include some element of claw-back costs. This expansion of coverage specifically for claw-back costs is generally accompanied with language that this does not include payment, return, reimbursement, disgorgement or restitution of any such amounts requested or required to be repaid. Instead, the policy will cover the cost incurred to facilitate the return of some amounts.

The definition of Loss typically includes a list of amounts that are not covered, often including fines, penalties, taxes, environmental clean-up costs, and matters uninsurable under the law. The great majority of policies do not mention disgorgement or restitution other than in connection with claw-back coverage.

In addition to the definition of covered loss, the most likely exclusions on a D&O policy that might be relevant to coverage for actual or alleged restitution are the personal profit or advantage exclusion and any exclusion for an accounting of profits (not a standard exclusion). When considering the potential for coverage for restitution, these exclusions and any other potentially applicable exclusions should be closely examined to determine if they are implicated. For example, if the exclusion is only triggered once there is a final adjudication that the prohibited conduct occurred, then allegations of such prohibited conduct, or specific relief sought in such claims, until such final adjudication are not excluded from coverage.

There are some coverage issues to consider when thinking about coverage for restitutionary amounts:

Do you want coverage for this?


  • Protects individuals from taking money out of their own pockets
  • Protects balance sheet where company indemnifies individuals


  • Erodes policy limits
  • May send the wrong message and can damage reputation (being seen as condoning wrongful conduct)

Can you get coverage for this?

  • Defense costs coverage?
  • Express coverage?
  • Can silence mean coverage?

As indicated in the beginning of this note, some Insurers expressly exclude coverage. Those Insurers without express exclusionary language in their policies do at times still assert that such amounts are not covered loss for several reasons:

  • The amounts are uninsurable or insurance payments are otherwise against public policy
  • For public companies, claims for restitution  may not flow from securities claims and therefore may not be covered for the entity
  • A personal profit or financial advantage exclusion may preclude coverage if the exclusion is triggered

Express coverage for actual restitution, disgorgement, return of ill-gotten gains or claw back amounts is uncommon and largely unavailable. It is still worth further discussion, particularly when considering the possibility of insuring such amounts outside the U.S. and the supervision of U.S. courts.

Facilitation costs in connection with claw-back claims is generally available though at times must be requested as it is not necessarily in the boilerplate of every policy.

Defense costs coverage would generally be available for claims seeking such damages whether or not expressly stated. Most policies will expressly state it anyway.

Overall, the question of coverage for payment of disgorgement, restitution, ill-gotten gains or claw-back amounts is worth the conversation.

The Truth About Your Excess Policies

By Jolie Small, Vice President, Alliant Insurance Services

Is your excess form truly “follow form,” and does that even really exist?

We spend a lot of time reviewing, editing and manuscripting primary policies but oftentimes excess policies are either just put into place or renewed without a second glance. Insurance Companies have enough reasons to deny claims, let’s not give them any extra. Be sure to check your excess forms just as closely as your primary. The goal is to make sure that the excess policies essentially grant the same coverage (if not broader) than your primary policy. If the policy language is significantly different than the excess policy may not respond to the same losses as the primary policy.

Two of the most important issues to look out for are (i) what triggers the policy coverage and (ii) if the most restrictive underlying language is present in the excess form.  Excess policies used to state that coverage would not be triggered until there was an “actual payment of loss by the underlying insurers.” But what if the Insured cannot afford to wait for the actual payment on the underlying? Excess policies need to recognize erosion of underlying limits, regardless where the source of payment comes from.  Meanwhile most restrictive underlying language is often still found in excess policy forms. Most restrictive underlying language is intended to make the excess policy follow any underlying policy provision as opposed to just the primary policy provisions.

The wording in your excess policy is just as significant as the wording in your primary policy. Some other key items to look out for is to make sure that there are limited exclusions in the policies, that the extended reporting periods are concurrent with the primary percentages and more stringent notice requirements are not present.

In an ideal world excess policies would be only one line which states, “we follow all definitions, terms and conditions of the primary policy,” but until then do not forget to double check all your forms, not just the primary.