on Insurance Uncategorized

Allocation Clauses in Directors and Officers (D&O) Liability Insurance: How Courts and Policies Split Costs

Directors and officers (D&O) claims frequently involve mixed losses — some covered by D&O policies, some not. Allocation clauses determine how defense fees, settlements and judgments are split when claims contain both covered and non‑covered elements. For boards and risk managers in the United States — especially in centers like New York, Delaware, California and Texas — how allocation is written (and how courts interpret it) can change who ultimately pays millions after a high‑stakes litigation.

Why allocation clauses matter (quick overview)

  • Mixed claims are common: securities suits, fiduciary claims, employment claims, and regulatory exposures may be pleaded together.
  • Allocation determines whether the insurer or the insured (or both) bears defense costs and indemnity for uncovered portions.
  • Allocation affects Side A / B / C exposures (individual indemnity, corporate indemnity, and entity coverage for securities claims). See how these sides interact in Side A, B & C Explained: The Three Pillars of a Directors and Officers (D&O) Liability Insurance Policy.

What is an allocation clause?

An allocation clause is policy language that tells the insurer and insured how to divide:

  • Defense costs (attorney fees, expert fees)
  • Settlements and judgments
    between covered and uncovered matters when they arise from the same claim or interrelated claims.

Common allocation methods:

  • Pro rata by time on the case — allocate costs based on the time attorneys spent on covered vs. uncovered issues.
  • By “loss” categories — allocate by type of loss (e.g., securities vs. employment).
  • Full allocation to insurer until exhaustion — insurer pays covered portion first.
  • “Fair and equitable” — court or arbitrator determines allocation on equitable principles.

How U.S. courts approach allocation: practical principles

U.S. courts do not adopt a single nationwide rule — results turn on policy wording and governing state law. Key practical points:

  • Policy language controls: Courts in Delaware and New York, two jurisdictional hubs for corporate litigation, emphasize the written allocation mechanism in the policy.
  • Equitable allocation where language is ambiguous: If the clause is ambiguous, courts apply a fair and reasonable allocation (often using time records or expert testimony).
  • Defense vs. indemnity treated differently: Some policies treat defense costs as payable immediately; others require allocation before payment of defense or indemnity.
  • Side A considerations: Insurers may try to treat payments to corporate indemnity (Side B or C) differently than Side A (individual indemnity). See more on defense interplay at Defense Provisions in Directors and Officers (D&O) Liability Insurance: Duty to Defend vs. Indemnify.

Court influence example: Delaware Chancery Court opinions (and New York federal and state courts) have influenced allocation reasoning by requiring contemporaneous time records, expert forensic allocation, or by applying a reasonableness standard based on pleadings and evidence.

Typical allocation clause variants — a comparison

Allocation approach How it works Pros for insured Pros for insurer
Pro rata by time (time-on-task) Use lawyer time entries to split defense fees Practical, defensible if good records exist Insurer can limit payment to documented covered time
By loss category (e.g., securities vs. employment) Allocate by count or category of claims Clear if allegations can be separated Allows insurer to exclude categories explicitly
Fair and equitable / “equitable allocation” Court/arbitrator determines split Can favor insured if ambiguous language exists Flexibility to argue limited exposure
Full allocation to insurer for covered parts first Insurer pays all covered portion; insured funds rest Rapid payment for covered parts Limits insurer exposure to covered portion only

Real-world pricing implications (U.S. market focus)

Allocation exposure affects premium and retentions. Current market dynamics in the U.S. (2023–2025) show hardened D&O pricing for public and larger private entities and competitive pricing for small organizations:

  • Small private companies (e.g., startups, local businesses in California, Texas, New York): $1,000–$5,000/year for $1M/$2M limits is a common market range for straightforward, low‑risk enterprises. Estimates compiled from marketplace brokers and insurer small‑business offerings (see Hiscox, Insureon links below).
  • Mid‑market private companies (broader liability, larger limits $5M–$10M): $10,000–$50,000/year, depending on industry and claims history.
  • Public companies and large private firms: premiums commonly start in the six figures ($100,000+) and can reach multiple millions depending on revenue, sector (biotech, fintech), and claims environment. Market reports from major brokers document significant rate increases for public D&O in hardened cycles.

Specific carriers active in the U.S. D&O market include Chubb, AIG, Travelers, and Hiscox. Chubb and AIG are known to underwrite larger corporate placements including Side A risks; Hiscox and other specialty carriers often serve small and mid‑market accounts. For small‑business baseline pricing and product descriptions see Hiscox and Insureon below.

Sources:

Drafting and negotiation tips for U.S. boards and counsel

When negotiating allocation language or endorsements, look to:

  • Clarify definitions: Define “loss,” “defense costs,” “claim” and “interrelated claims” to prevent insurer-friendly gaps.
  • Prefer pro rata/time‑on‑task with contemporaneous records: Insureds who keep detailed time entries benefit from pro rata splits if disputes arise.
  • Seek a favorable “advancement” or “priorities of payment” clause: Insist on language that ensures defense costs are advanced as incurred rather than being held until allocation is resolved.
  • Ask for Side A enhancement or standalone Side A limit where board members face solvency risk if the company cannot indemnify.
  • Carve out certain matters (e.g., wage & hour, ERISA) to be explicitly covered or excluded — clarity reduces allocation fights. Review red flags before binding coverage; for more on policy red flags see Policy Wording Red Flags: Key Clauses to Negotiate in Your Directors and Officers (D&O) Liability Insurance.

Practical checklist (for CFOs, CLOs and boards in New York, Delaware, California, Texas)

  • Review existing D&O policy allocation and priorities of payment language.
  • Confirm insurer’s approach to advancing defense costs (documented advancement language is critical).
  • Maintain detailed legal billing records to support time‑on‑task allocations.
  • Negotiate Side A limits and consider a standalone Side A policy where directors face personal exposure.
  • Engage coverage counsel early if a mixed claim is filed — early allocation disputes are easier to manage than post‑settlement fights.

Conclusion

Allocation clauses are a technical but pivotal piece of D&O coverage architecture. In the United States — particularly in Delaware and New York where most corporate suits are litigated — the exact policy wording and contemporaneous records frequently decide who pays. Boards and risk managers should negotiate clear allocation language, insist on advancement of defense costs, and consider Side A enhancements to protect individual officers and directors.

Further reading (internal):

Sources and further market reading

Recommended Articles