Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

No Coverage for Claim First Made and Reported After Policy Expired

By Margaret Karchmer on May 6, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
iStock-926689776

A Louisiana federal district court has held that a claims-made-and-reported professional liability policy did not provide coverage for a claim first made and reported years after the policy expired. Sistrunk v. Haddox, 2021 WL 1723545 (W.D. La. Apr. 30, 2021).

A former investment advisor’s clients filed suit in April 2018 against him and his investment firm for allegedly churning their accounts and other fraudulent activity.  The investment advisor and his firm were insured under a claims-made professional liability policy that expired on July 1, 2015.

The clients amended their complaint to add the professional liability insurer as a defendant solely in its capacity as the insurer of the investment advisor and his firm.  The court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the investment advisor or his firm because the underlying claim was neither made nor reported during the applicable policy period.

In so holding, the court rejected the claimants’ argument that the insurer had notice of the underlying claims because the Louisiana Department of Insurance had initiated administrative proceedings against the investment advisor for similar misconduct related to other clients because the claimants did not provide competent summary judgment evidence to support this conclusory allegation.

The court also rejected the claimants’ argument that the investment advisor’s knowledge of the claim may be imputed to its insurer, finding no legal support for such an assertion.

Finally, the court held that the insurer’s failure to address the policy’s extended reporting period did not preclude summary judgment in its favor because the claimants had not presented any evidence that the extended reporting period would apply and therefore failed to meet their burden of establishing a dispute of material fact.

Photo of Margaret Karchmer Margaret Karchmer

Margaret represents insurers in connection with coverage issues and disputes arising under professional liability and general liability insurance policies. Margaret, a certified Legal Lean Sigma Institute (LLSI) White Belt, uses the LLSI process and project management tools to continually improve the value proposition…

Margaret represents insurers in connection with coverage issues and disputes arising under professional liability and general liability insurance policies. Margaret, a certified Legal Lean Sigma Institute (LLSI) White Belt, uses the LLSI process and project management tools to continually improve the value proposition the firm delivers to its clients.

Read more about Margaret KarchmerEmailMargaret's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    Wiley Executive Summary
  • Organization:
    Wiley Rein LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo