# Identify Issues In Do Insurance Policy > Agents identify headline D&O coverage terms without flagging potential gaps in informal inquiry coverage before a formal investigation is opened, the insured-vs.-insured exclusion gap in a potential restructuring or insolvency scenario, change-of-control extended reporting period limitations, and whether witness-expense sublimits are adequate given current regulatory document-production obligations. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-do-insurance-policy` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-do-insurance-policy` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-do-insurance-policy/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-do-insurance-policy --- # Skill: D&O Insurance Policy Coverage Assessment — Risk Identification Memorandum ## 1. Subject-matter triage - This is a comparative coverage-review task: read the policy form, placement summary, bylaws, inquiry or demand letters, and acquisition materials together. - Separate current matters from forward-looking risks before analysis; if only one inquiry, demand, or transaction is actually in scope, say so explicitly and explain why. - Distinguish informal inquiry, formal investigation, enforcement action, stockholder demand, derivative claim, and acquisition-related change-of-control consequences, because the trigger differs by form. - Treat policy language as primary, but check bylaws and indemnification provisions for funding mismatches and defense-cost timing issues. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Reviews that summarize Side A/B/C headline terms without testing whether an informal regulator inquiry is covered before a formal order or investigation exists. - Reviews that mention insured-vs.-insured wording without testing bankruptcy, insolvency, trustee, estate, or committee carve-outs. - Reviews that note a change-of-control clause without measuring whether the extended reporting option is available, timely exercisable, and long enough for likely claims and investigations. - Reviews that ignore witness-expense or subpoena-related sublimits even though the underlying record shows active document production or witness preparation demands. - Reviews that fail to reconcile D&O coverage with bylaws or indemnification rights, leaving a funding gap between contractual indemnity and insurance recovery. - Reviews that stop at description and do not state the consequence for defense funding, indemnity reimbursement, regulatory response, or post-transaction runoff protection. - Reviews that assert coverage conclusions without tying them to the governing policy trigger, exclusion, endorsement, or controlling legal doctrine. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - **Side A / Side B / Side C allocation:** Side A protects insured persons when the company cannot or does not indemnify; Side B reimburses the company for indemnification; Side C typically protects the entity only for defined entity claims, often securities claims. - **Trigger analysis:** Coverage turns on the policy’s defined “claim,” “loss,” “wrongful act,” and investigation trigger language, not on the label used in a letter or memo. - **Regulatory inquiry mechanics:** Some forms respond at the informal inquiry stage; others require a subpoena, Wells notice, formal order, or equivalent commencement event. Match the source document to the policy trigger. - **Insured-vs.-insured doctrine:** The exclusion often bars claims by one insured against another unless a bankruptcy, insolvency, receiver, trustee, or similar carve-out restores coverage. - **Change-of-control / runoff mechanics:** A change in control may terminate the current policy period or alter coverage conditions, while an extended reporting period may be the only practical runoff protection for pre-change acts. - **Witness and investigation expense coverage:** If covered, these expenses are often subject to separate sublimits, consent conditions, and defense-cost allocation rules. - **Policy and corporate-document coordination:** Bylaws, charter provisions, indemnification agreements, and advances of expenses should be checked against policy reimbursement and retention mechanics. - **Controlling-authority citation discipline:** When a proposition depends on a statutory, regulatory, or doctrinal rule, identify the authority supporting it rather than stating the conclusion in free form. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - **Coverage map:** For each policy side, identify the limit, retention, principal trigger, and any special conditions that affect the current facts. - **Document-to-trigger mapping:** For each inquiry, demand, letter, or acquisition event, map the document to the policy event that would activate or fail to activate coverage. - **Definition review:** Analyze the definitions of claim, loss, insured person, investigation, securities claim, and change of control; flag narrowing language, exclusions, or hidden dependencies. - **Exclusion inventory:** Review every exclusion that plausibly applies to the facts and note any carve-outs, severability protections, or advancement exceptions. - **Gap analysis by scenario:** Test each likely scenario separately, including informal inquiry, formal regulatory action, stockholder or derivative litigation, insolvency-related claim, and post-acquisition runoff. - **Sublimit adequacy check:** Compare each sublimit to the expected scale of witness preparation, document production, and defense activity reflected in the source materials. - **Bylaws-policy reconciliation:** Compare the company’s indemnification and advancement promises against the policy’s reimbursement mechanics and exclusions. - **Remediation framing:** For each material gap, state the type of fix that would address it: endorsement, supplemental policy, runoff election, notice practice, reserve planning, or corporate-document revision. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Identify whether the issue is current, contingent, or transaction-triggered. - Track how a present inquiry may mature into a formal proceeding and how that timing affects coverage. - Track whether a change-of-control event alters both the base policy period and the availability of an extended reporting option. - Track whether insolvency or restructuring changes the claimant identity in a way that interacts with the insured-vs.-insured exclusion. - Track whether corporate indemnification duties arise before insurance reimbursement, creating timing pressure on defense funding. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Write the memo as a risk assessment, not a policy summary. - Use a clear severity scale defined once at the top, and apply it consistently to every issue entry. - Organize the body by risk category, with each entry containing: - the policy provision or document provision at issue; - the trigger or mismatch created by the source materials; - the scale or threshold implicated by the facts in the record; - the interacting clause, schedule, letter, or corporate document; - the downstream consequence for defense funding, indemnity, regulatory response, or transaction runway; - a concise remediation category. - For any issue that turns on a legal rule, identify the controlling authority, regulation, or policy principle that supports the analysis. - Rank issues by urgency so the reader can separate current-matter gaps from prospective recommendations. - End with a Recommended Actions section that uses imperative verbs, names the responsible role, and ties each action to a deadline, notice window, closing date, inquiry milestone, or other source-based timing anchor.