Opinion ID: 803381
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Lane Trust

Text: All parties agree that two of the plaintiffs in the Miller action, Miller and Anderson, qualify as insureds and that two other plaintiffs, Gene King and Teresa King, do not. The dispute is over the status of the Lane Trust. Under the St. Paul D&O policy, the insured vs. insured exclusion extends to anyone who acts “on behalf of any Insured or Company in any capacity . . . .” We agree with the district court that the “distinction between Lane the individual and Lane the trustee of her namesake trust is not sufficient to remove her from the definition of an ‘Insured.’” Lane is a beneficiary of the trust. As a former director of SCBI, she is also an insured. Applying the most basic concept of a trust, the Lane Trust acts “on behalf of” its beneficiaries, including Lane as an individual, when it pursues damages in the Miller action for the ultimate benefit of those beneficiaries. Otherwise it would be too easy to evade the insured vs. insured exclusion by having an insured merely assign her claims to a trust she controls. The Lane Trust is an insured under the policy.