Court Rulings on Insurance Coverage
A coverage ruling turns an argument about policy language into precedent. This category follows the decisions that matter to future claims — duty to defend, allocation across policy periods, trigger of coverage — at both the trial and appellate level.
- Aon owed no duty to non-client third party, appeal ruling ...
The Seventh Circuit ruled that Aon Risk Services owed no duty to a non-client seeking coverage through a policy Aon arranged for another broker. The court said a broker’s duty runs to its own client, not a similarly situated outsider. It affirmed dismissal of the negligence claim and summary judgment on the contract claim.
- New Jersey Supreme Court backs D&O insurance capacity exclusion
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed a D&O insurer's right to withdraw coverage under a capacity exclusion after reserving rights from the start. The court said the exclusion barred claims involving wrongful acts by an insured person acting for another entity and did not require a causal link. It found the exclusion applied to the claims as a whole and defeated the insured's estoppel theory.
- Appellate Court Upholds Auto Carrier's Denial of Coverage.
In Halstead v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court order that had denied Progressive's summary judgment motion. The appellate court said the tortfeasor was not a named insured and the vehicle was not a covered vehicle under the policy. It remanded for entry of declaratory judgment for Progressive.
- Settlement ends Mt. Hawley's coverage appeal at the ...
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Mt. Hawley Insurance Co.'s appeal on August 11, 2026, after the underlying Florida state suit settled. The court said no live controversy remained and the trial court order lacked injunctive qualities. It also noted any appeal now belonged to the final judgment.
- 5th Circuit strikes down parts of No Surprises QPA rule ...
A Fifth Circuit en banc ruling on Aug. 11, 2026, struck parts of the federal No Surprises Act rule for calculating qualifying payment amounts. The court barred the use of ghost rates and said bonus and incentive payments must be included, while upholding treatment of single-case agreements.
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Rapid-American Corp.
The New York appellate court held that the environmental pollution exclusion in a standard CGL policy does not relieve the insurer of its duty to defend asbestos-induced respiratory injury claims. The ruling required the carrier to defend Rapid-American in the underlying suits.
- Delaware court rules Ironshore must cover StoneX employee arbitration
The Delaware Superior Court ruled that Ironshore Indemnity must cover a FINRA arbitration involving its insured, StoneX Group. The insurer had tried to shift the defense-cost bill to an earlier policy year it did not cover, but the court rejected that approach on July 29, 2026. The court dismissed StoneX’s bad faith claim and left an allocation issue open.
- 7th Circuit affirms lower court decision over insurance coverage in Tipton County wrongful death lawsuit
The 7th Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that an insurer does not have to cover a Tipton County employer in a wrongful death lawsuit. The court said the estate’s allegations fell within Indiana workers’ compensation laws and the policy’s exclusions.
- Apparel Co. Loses Coverage Bid For Adidas Trademark Suit
A California federal judge ruled that an insurer has no duty to defend a fashion company in its latest Adidas trademark infringement dispute. The court held the claims fell within a prior publication exclusion because the company had allegedly published infringing advertising before the policy period.
- Merck's $1.4 billion cyberattack claim – the specter of ...
A New Jersey appellate court ruled that Merck’s insurers may have to cover part of a $1.4 billion NotPetya cyberattack claim. The court rejected reliance on a hostile or warlike action exclusion in Merck’s all-risks property policies. Eight insurers were directly affected, and 26 policies were originally at issue.
- Appeals court lets insurer control defense despite conflict ...
On August 5, 2026, the Seventh Circuit rejected claims that a conflict required Northland to appoint independent counsel. The court said Illinois law allows that remedy only when a serious, actual conflict exists. It also held that the mere possibility of an excess verdict does not trigger independent counsel rights.
- Category – Liability Insurance - Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Several recent liability coverage decisions are highlighted, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s July 21, 2026 ruling in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. RI Settlement Trust. The decision rejected insurers’ public-policy defense to claims involving alleged sex trafficking by hotel operators.…
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Fifth Circuit remanded Frontier Custom Builders, Inc. v. Kinsale Insurance Co. for further clarification after finding the district court’s brief order did not permit reasoned review. Frontier had appealed the ruling that policy exclusions barred defense and indemnity in an arbitration action. The policies covered property damage caused by an occurrence, but excluded damage to property owned, rented, or occupied by Frontier.
- Settlement may have mooted insurer's coverage dispute
The Fourth Circuit sent an insurer’s declaratory judgment case back to district court after the insured Virginia Beach nightclub settled the underlying lawsuit for $155,000. The appellate court said the district judge must first decide whether the coverage dispute became moot before reaching duty-to-defend or indemnify issues. The remand turns on whether a live controversy remains after settlement.
- Exhaustion Is Not Blanket Rule for Excess-Insurer Lawsuits
The California Supreme Court held that alleged insureds do not have to plead full exhaustion of underlying policies to pursue declaratory relief and bad-faith claims against excess insurers. In Fox Paine & Company LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, the court said the absence of exhaustion is not fatal if liability is reasonably likely to reach the excess layer. The opinion rejected a blanket exhaustion prerequisite.
- PA. Supreme Court Rules That Liability Carriers Are Not Automatically Protected From Having To Provide Coverage in Sex Trafficking Cases
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously rejected insurers’ attempt to block coverage for hotels sued over allegations that they enabled or profited from sex trafficking. In Samsung Fire and Marina v. R.I. Settlement Trust, the court held that Pennsylvania’s criminal prohibition on sex trafficking does not automatically bar insurance coverage. The court said the contract controls where the Human Trafficking Law does not answer the coverage question.
- Insurance-Liability Policy-Coverage Exclusion
A Missouri Court of Appeals panel affirmed summary judgment for insurers in an opioid coverage dispute involving the Opioid Master Disbursement Trust II. The plaintiff sought coverage for claims over allegedly deceptive marketing of unbranded opioid products. The court said injuries arising from false marketing representations fell within the policies' exclusion for bodily injury caused by that campaign.