That’s interesting. Thanks.
Wondering about the phrase in your post: “If it could be established that the professional liability issues in handling the Flynn case were deliberate and intentional, I doubt most carriers would cover the claim,”
If the people who bought the insurance did “deliberate and intentional” acts reluctantly only because they were ordered to by superiors and other TPTB, (under duress) ... how do you think that would be handled?
That's certainly an interesting question and it could go in a number of different directions. If the intentional acts were performed prior to the coverage period of the policy, then there would be no coverage for them.
If this were a commercial liability case where higher ups in a corporation directed the misconduct, then civil (and if applicable, criminal) liability would extend up to those giving the order and possibly to the business itself.
What complicates this case is these are government employees, and to an extent they would have qualified immunity from civil liability, unless it could be demonstrated that their actions were not merely poor decisions, or deviations from protocol, but also had bad-faith motives.
Let's suppose Flynn sued some of these employees for their actions. The employees would turn it over to their insurance companies. If the insurer accepted that the employees were in fact professionally liable, they would try to settle the claim. If, on the other hand, the insurer would deny coverage (based on the gov't employee's fraud on the application, excluded loss, etc.) Flynn would sue them personally, during which the employees may try to use the "just following orders," defense, or invoking qualified immunity. I don't think there is a clear answer to your question that would not be answered short of litigation, and I would suspect such a suit would likely establish some pretty weighty case law for future actions.