FirstCover
Go back

Understanding Your D&O Insurance Cost: Are You Paying Too Much?

Understanding Your D&O Insurance Cost: Are You Paying Too Much?
Capital Markets Apr 25, 2024
hero-image

Before purchasing D&O insurance, understanding the D&O insurance structure and policy terms is essential to directors' and officers' protection. However, premiums and retention determine if they are getting the best value on the right policy. Typically, a company considers buying a primary D&O policy and some excess policies, but the key consideration here is whether the coverage is worth the deal.

To answer the question, we will first focus on understanding D&O insurance costs from the coverage structure. Standard D&O policies commonly provide three clauses, categorized as Side A, Side B, and Side C.

It is no wonder that the key consideration when buying D&O insurance is the premium cost. Simply put, the size of the company's balance sheet, time length of the business, policy terms, risk appetite and focus, and claim history can all affect insurance costs. Intuitively, company size, business time length, and claim history are easier to cope with, and these standard measures are not likely to drive much price change. So the question would also be, why is the rate of D&O insurance rising now? The market and climate of D&O insurance have changed drastically in recent years, with the increasing cost of regulatory investigations and growing D&O insurance popularity among smaller-sized companies.

In addition, according to some online reports, it is apparent that the risk trends for directors and officers spread from traditional lawsuits to cyber risk concerns when online paperless systems may trigger litigation against directors' and officers' company and personal accounts. The collapse of FTX, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges, could be an example to see how important cyber risk management is nowadays. Other than that, Environmental, Social, And Governance (ESG) activities also play a notable role in the D&O insurance market. Company directors and officers are often exposed to the risk of litigation when these issues and events are formed. By all the factors, the costs of D&O insurance inevitably grew over the last several years, however, that does not mean purchasers have absolutely no choice.

With the right broker understanding the needs of coverage and reasonable price, First Cover provides an affordable premium matching plan for D&O insurance. We are happy to help and explain our D&O insurance program because we believe in potential savings with the right coverage for every client.

More posts

blog image 1 Public Perception First Cover Announces Sponsorship at SPAC Conference 2023, Continuing its Commitment to Navigating Complex Management Risks
First Cover, Inc. ("First Cover"), the New York-based risk, compliance, and corporate services provider, proudly announces sponsoring the upcoming SPAC Conference 2023.
blog image 1 Capital Markets U.S. IPO Trends, SPAC Activity, and Listing Regulatory Rules
This report tracks all U.S. public-market IPO activity from January 1 through February 27, 2026, and maps the parallel tightening of listing and regulatory frameworks relevant to small-cap issuer survivability. Because IPO counts vary materially across data providers—driven by differences in SPAC inclusion, minimum deal size, and treatment of micro-cap foreign issuers—the report anchors to two complementary datasets and keeps their definitions explicit throughout.
blog image 1 Regulatory Compliance Form 10-S Arrives, But Quarterly Disclosure Won't Disappear
The SEC’s May 5, 2026 proposal to let U.S. public companies file a new Form 10-S semiannual report in place of three Form 10-Qs is not just a filing-form update. It is a direct challenge to one of the organizing assumptions of modern U.S. securities regulation: that quarterly, standardized, SEC-reviewed interim reporting is the default architecture for public company transparency. Chairman Paul Atkins has framed the proposal as part of his “Make IPOs Great Again” agenda, arguing that the current regime is too rigid, too costly, and too poorly tailored to issuers with very different business models and investor bases. [1]