An excess D&O insurer had no obligation to contribute to Vizio’s settlement with its primary general liability insurer for liabilities arising from the Smart TV Litigation, a California federal district court has held. See Vizio, Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Company, No. 2:20-cv-06864-ODW, slip op. (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2021).

Vizio was seeking coverage for liabilities incurred in connection with the so-called Smart TV Litigation, a multidistrict litigation in which consumers alleged that Vizio improperly disseminated and used their personal information and misled them about acquiring Vizio products.

Vizio had settled its Smart TV Litigation coverage claim against its general liability insurer for an undisclosed amount.

It then alleged that its primary D&O insurer, Navigators, wrongfully denied coverage for the claim and that its excess D&O insurer, Arch, failed to timely accept or deny the claim.

Vizio asserted claims against Arch for breach of contract for failure to provide a defense or indemnity, bad faith, and equitable contribution. Arch moved to dismiss.