Helen Saulnier 
I didn’t want July to go devoid of commenting on The Fid Guru’s excellent web site post reviewing excessive fee litigation in excess of the first half of the 12 months and the corresponding point out of the fiduciary legal responsibility insurance coverage sector. I especially appreciated the extensive discussion of the history of the market for fiduciary legal responsibility protection, as it gives great context to the commentary that is out there on the internet and elsewhere about modifications in the availability and pricing of fiduciary legal responsibility coverage. As numerous of you possible know, there has been much internal dialogue among attorneys and program sponsors regarding the availability of fiduciary legal responsibility coverage. The article clarifies that – subject matter to exceptions – protection commonly continues to be available but plan limits have turn into – pun meant – minimal, and the use of considerable retentions or sub-retentions has increased significantly, all to command the stage of chance taken on by insurers in gentle of the spectacular increase in class action litigation against programs.
I have defended a number of shoppers about the decades towards lawsuits who didn’t have fiduciary legal responsibility coverage (either simply because they chose not to obtain it or tried to but couldn’t attain it) and who regretted not owning the coverage just after being sued. Regardless of what the phrases were being for the coverage when they could have procured it, it was significantly less expensive than the price of thoroughly funding the defense of the litigation itself and the settlement in complete, from dollar zero, as they ended up essential to do in the absence of any coverage at all. Even with a superior retention, they continue to would have drastically reduced their liability in each individual circumstance by getting had fiduciary liability protection in position.
