Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:20-bk-12043 Doc 466 Filed 10/09/20 Entered 10/09/20 14:25:40 Desc Main <br />Document Page 5 of 9 <br />(Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005). While the court did recognize that that directors and <br />officers had, "rights to defense payments to fund their defense," that was incidental <br />to the court's finding that, "substantial and irreparable harm," would befall the <br />directors and officers without being able to make a claim against the policy. Id. <br />Neither the fact that the policy directly covered the debtor, nor the fact that the <br />directors and officers had a contractual right to make a claim against the policy, <br />were operative. Rather, it was the irreparable harm that would result in denying the <br />directors and officers the ability to make a claim that would allow them to fund <br />their defense that convinced the court to lift the automatic stay. <br />b. Indeed, the UCC's argument that Hughs is not directly payable under the policy, <br />and therefore no cause independent of his lack of contractual rights exists to lift the <br />stay, flies in the face of the very purpose of D&O Insurance Policies. As one court <br />observed: <br />"D & O policies are obtained for the protection of individual <br />directors and officers. Indemnification coverage does not <br />change this fundamental purpose. There is an important <br />distinction between the individual liability and the <br />reimbursement portions of a D & O policy. The liability <br />portion of the policy provides coverage directly to officers <br />and directors, insuring the individuals from personal loss for <br />claims that are not indemnified by the corporation. Unlike <br />an ordinary liability insurance policy, in which a corporate <br />purchaser obtains primary protection from lawsuits, a <br />61 <br />