Director & Officer liability
Generic D&O wordings were written for non-digital-asset companies. The exposures a director of a digital-asset firm carries — token classification disputes, governance challenges around DAO structures, regulatory enforcement under emerging digital-asset regimes, SAFT and SAFE history — are not always cleanly covered by an off-the-shelf wording. Placing D&O for this class requires reading the wording against the named exposures and, where necessary, negotiating endorsements.
Perils
01
Insuring clause ·Cover responds to claims against directors arising from regulator or investor allegations that an issued token was an unregistered security.
Exclusions ·Wording varies — some FI D&O wordings exclude “Coin” or “Token” matters explicitly; others are silent (which is its own ambiguity). We negotiate the language and where exclusionary endorsements apply.
02
Insuring clause ·Cover responds to alleged breaches of directors’ duties in operating the firm. For digital-asset firms, this can include token-holder governance disputes that, depending on jurisdiction, may or may not be treated as shareholder claims by the wording.
Exclusions ·Defence costs frequently disputed before liability; certain DAO-governance constructions sit outside the standard shareholder-claim definition and require endorsement.
03
Insuring clause ·Cover responds (subject to wording and to enforceability) to defence costs of regulatory investigations and enforcement actions.
Exclusions ·Fines and penalties may or may not be insurable by jurisdiction; the wording must be read for each regulator named in the schedule.
04
Insuring clause ·Cover responds (where placed) to directors’ exposures arising from offerings, secondary sales, and disclosures preceding a token-generation event or public listing.
Exclusions ·Often requires a Prospectus Liability endorsement or a separate POSI placement; standard D&O wordings do not always reach into pre-listing offering activity.
05
Insuring clause ·Side A (non-indemnifiable losses of directors) and DIC (difference-in-conditions) layers are placed where the corporate indemnification structure leaves residual director exposure.
Exclusions ·Particularly relevant where the corporate vehicle is offshore and indemnification may be impaired; trigger and drop-down language reads against the underlying ABC tower.
Underwriting
Corporate structure. Entity, jurisdiction, group chart, regulated activities by entity, board composition.
Token history. Any token issuance, SAFT or SAFE, secondary sales, public listings. Token classification opinions on file.
Regulatory posture. FCA / SEC / MAS / other regulator interactions. Open enforcement matters or investigations.
Financial position. Audited financials, runway, material liabilities.
Claims and litigation history. Director-level matters over the prior 60 months.
Existing programmes. Current D&O incumbent (if any), expiring terms, claims experience, retention structure.
Use the RFI form to indicate your operating posture — same business day response from a named broker.
Author’s note
Refreshed 24 May 2026
I have walked more D&O wordings on digital-asset firms than is healthy. The one finding I keep coming back to: token exposure is silent more often than it is excluded, and a silent wording is the most expensive kind. Read the Securities definition first, then the Insured Capacity language, then the regulatory-defence clause. If any of those three is silent on tokens, the cover is doing less than the premium suggests.
— Senior Broker, Financial Lines
Carrier panel
Panel slot 01
Published on authorisation.
Panel slot 02
Published on authorisation.
Panel slot 03
Published on authorisation.
Panel slot 04
Published on authorisation.
Panel slot 05
Published on authorisation.
Panel slot 06
Published on authorisation.
Editorial reference · public-press third-party reporting
D&O capacity for digital-asset firms has tightened materially from 2022-2024 enforcement cycles. We track which carriers continue to write the class and the wording variants in current use. We do not publish carrier names pre-coverholder; we discuss them in the RFI workflow, framed as third-party editorial reference to public reporting rather than as a representation of an existing relationship.
Process
Enquiry
RFI form or direct email to a named broker. Same-business-day acknowledgement; named broker assigned within one business day.
Pre-qualification
Six-question Q-pack run jointly. Initial appetite read from the D&O market. Typically 5-10 business days.
Submission
Underwriting submission drafted by znobia, with attention to token-specific endorsements; reviewed with the client; sent to the target market. Typically 10-20 business days.
Quote
Markets respond with indicative terms. We summarise quotes against the original risk and the buyer’s stated priorities — limit, retention, exclusions.
Bind
Client issues an instruction-to-bind. Binder issued by the carrier. Typically a further 5-10 business days post-quote.
Servicing
Endorsements, mid-term changes, claims notifications, renewal. Each handled by the same named broker as on placement.
Typical timeline: 6-12 weeks for new D&O programmes; 4-8 weeks for renewals where the wording is being re-negotiated. Expedited paths available for renewal.
Related primers
Why your D&O may not respond to a digital-asset incident — coverage gap analysis
03 May 2026
Token exposures in D&O wording — a checklist
14 April 2026
znobia acts as an insurance intermediary. We do not underwrite risk. Cover, where available, is placed with authorised carriers and is subject to underwriter approval, policy terms, exclusions and conditions. Nothing on this site is investment, tax, legal or financial advice. Cover described on this page is illustrative. Availability, terms, limits, retentions, and pricing are determined by the underwriter and are subject to underwriter approval, policy terms, exclusions, and conditions.