Mealey's Emerging Insurance Disputes

  • October 14, 2026

    Federal Judge Grants Commercial Insurer’s Motion To Dismiss Insured’s Counterclaim

    MIAMI — A federal judge in Florida granted a commercial insurer’s motion to dismiss an insured’s declaratory judgment counterclaim seeking coverage for the insured’s breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing counterclaims in an underlying lawsuit brought by a company to which the insured rented event space under a management agreement, holding that it would be unreasonable to infer that the insured’s counterclaims in the underlying action were necessary to its defense in that action.

  • October 14, 2026

    Senior Care Liability Insurer Seeks Reconsideration Of Summary Judgment Ruling

    SEATTLE — A senior care liability insurer seeks reconsideration of a Washington federal court’s denial of cross-motions for partial summary judgment on an assignee’s breach of contract counterclaim in its lawsuit seeking a declaration that it has no further duty to defend or indemnify its insured against an underlying negligence and abuse action that resulted in a $4.2 million settlement, asserting that the court erred by failing to consider evidence that it suffered actual prejudice when the insured settled the case and assigned policy rights without the insurer’s consent.

  • October 14, 2026

    Judge: Taco Bell Owners Failed To Timely Report Sexual Harassment Claim Under Policy

    SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California granted an employment practices liability (EPL) insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit seeking coverage for underlying sexual harassment claims brought by a former employee of a Taco Bell that was owned and operated by the insureds, holding that the insureds failed to timely report the underlying claim and, therefore, no EPL coverage was triggered.

  • October 14, 2026

    Judge Dismisses 3 Insurers In Opioid Coverage Dispute Following Parties’ Stipulation

    PHILADELPHIA— One day after the parties filed voluntary stipulations of dismissal, a federal judge in Pennsylvania issued three separate orders dismissing with prejudice three insurers in an opioid litigation coverage dispute brought by the trustee of a general unsecured creditors’ trust formed after the pharmaceutical company insured filed for bankruptcy.

  • October 14, 2026

    Attorney: Misclassification Of Insurer Client Was ‘Embarrassing Mistake,’ Not Fraud

    RALEIGH, N.C. — An attorney told a North Carolina federal court that he did not properly verify his homeowners insurer client’s corporate status and citizenship before filing the insurer’s lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend and indemnify in an underlying action accusing an unemancipated minor of going on a shooting rampage that killed several people in a Raleigh neighborhood, asserting in a reply brief in support of a motion for voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice that he did not intend to deceive the court.

  • October 02, 2026

    COMMENTARY: Whom Do You “No”?: No-Action Clauses Do Not Prevent Enforcement Of Insurance Policies

    By William G. Passannante, Luma S. Al-Shibib and Kathleen V. Gatti

  • October 13, 2026

    Ala. High Court: Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage For $4.75M Judgment

    MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a general liability insurer and insurance agencies in a pharmacy insured’s coverage lawsuit arising from an underlying $4.75 million judgment entered against it in an action alleging that it caused injuries by improperly compounding prescription medication, ruling that the policy’s professional services exclusion bars coverage because all of the underlying claims “have their origin in, grow out of, or flow from” the insured’s compounding error.

  • October 06, 2026

    COMMENTARY: Insurance And Reinsurance Commutations, Run-Off, And Loss Portfolio Transfers: The Language, Vehicles, And Pathways For Losing Unwanted Legacy Liabilities

    By Scott M. Seaman and Daniel C. Shatz

  • October 12, 2026

    Insurers Have Duty To Defend Walmart Against Opioid Suits, Arkansas Panel Affirms

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — An Arkansas appeals court panel affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Walmart Inc. in its lawsuit seeking primary and excess coverage for its costs in defending thousands of underlying actions alleging that it contributed to the opioid crisis by selling and dispensing opioid medications, holding that the gravamen of the opioid litigation is not based on intentional malfeasance by Walmart but on its failure to put proper controls in place to find and report opioid orders that were suspicious.

  • October 12, 2026

    11th Circuit: Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Homeowners’ Coverage Suit

    ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Georgia insureds’ argument that a lower court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant summary judgment in favor of their insurer in a coverage dispute over an underlying nuisance, negligence and trespass action brought by their neighbors, holding that a “live controversy persisted at all stages of” the lawsuit and that the insurer’s claims “handily” satisfied the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1332, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

  • October 09, 2026

    Panel Partly Reverses Punitive Damages Ruling In Coverage Suit Prompted By Hate Mail

    WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Following the Florida Supreme Court’s determination, in answer to a certified question, that an appeals court erred in its interpretation of Florida Statutes Section 768.72(1) when it refused to allow petitioners to amend their counterclaims to seek punitive damages against a neighbor, his insurer and the insurer’s counsel in a lawsuit arising from “hate mail” letters, the appeals court panel on remand affirmed without discussion the trial court’s order permitting amendment of the counterclaims to seek punitive damages against the neighbor but reversed the lower court’s order allowing amendment of counterclaims against the insurer and the insurer’s counsel.

  • October 09, 2026

    Judge Approves Settlement With Insurers For Marketing Texts, Calls

    ST. LOUIS — A Missouri state court judge granted final approval to a $1.25 million settlement resolving class claims brought against three insurers for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by allowing their agents to send “incessant telemarketing calls and text messages” to individuals on the national Do Not Call (DNC) registry, with the insurers agreeing to pay up to $160 per phone number and more than $396,000 in attorney fees and expenses while denying any wrongdoing.

  • October 08, 2026

    Insurers, County Appeal Judgment On Economic Losses In Bridge Collapse Suit

    RICHMOND, Va. — Insurers and Baltimore County, Md., appealed to the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals a Maryland federal judge’s ruling that granted in part and denied in part a motion for judgment on the pleadings by the owner and technical manager of the ship that allided with and destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore in 2024, a ruling that significantly narrowed the scope of the purely economic loss claims that will proceed in the movants’ exoneration lawsuit.

  • October 07, 2026

    Judge Dismisses All Claims In Auto Parts Manufacturer’s Coronavirus Coverage Dispute

    GREENSBORO, N.C. — A federal judge in North Carolina granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice an automotive parts manufacturer insured’s breach of contract, bad faith and unfair and deceptive trade practices lawsuit seeking coverage for its losses caused by the “presence of COVID-19” at its facilities, holding that no coverage exists under the policy’s Communicable Disease Coverage Endorsement and that, alternatively, any potential coverage would be voided under the policy’s concealment and fraud provision.

  • October 06, 2026

    N.Y. Panel Modifies, Vacates, Affirms 2 Orders In NFL Concussion Coverage Dispute

    NEW YORK — Ruling on appeals of two summary judgment rulings in a coverage dispute over underlying lawsuits alleging that the National Football League negligently failed to protect former players from brain injuries purportedly caused by concussive head impacts, a New York appellate panel held that an excess insurer has no duty to indemnify the NFL and NFL Properties LLC in connection with an underlying multidistrict litigation settlement and found that NFL football does not constitute a “product” under the Products Completed Operations Hazard (PCOH) so the PCOH aggregate limits are not applicable.

  • October 05, 2026

    U.S. Supreme Court Denies Doctor’s Cert Petition In Hidden Cameras Coverage Dispute

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 5 denied a doctor’s petition seeking review of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling that affirmed as modified a lower court’s dismissal of her breach of contract lawsuit seeking business interruption and umbrella coverage for her losses arising from the discovery of hidden cameras at her dermatology office.

  • September 30, 2026

    Judge: Insurer May Not Relitigate Coverage Issue In Bad Faith Affirmative Defenses

    WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida granted in part an insured’s assignee’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding 10 of a commercial marine insurer’s 16 affirmative defenses in response to the assignee’s bad faith claim, holding that the insurer may not relitigate whether the policy’s “Swimming and Snorkeling Liability Endorsement” eliminated coverage for underlying scuba diving injuries because it already unsuccessfully argued the coverage issue during arbitration of the assignee’s breach of contract and declaratory relief claims.

  • September 30, 2026

    Mandate Entered On Order Reversing Ruling In Favor Of Insurers In Abuse Coverage Suit

    DENVER — The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 29 entered a mandate on its ruling that reversed a lower federal court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of insurers in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ breach of contract and declaratory judgment lawsuit seeking coverage for a negligence action alleging that it failed to take precautions to stop sexual abuse.

  • September 30, 2026

    Judge: Fire Exclusion Bars Excess Coverage For $17M Verdict In Negligence Suit

    GAINESVILLE, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida granted a commercial excess liability insurer’s motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify its property owner insured for a $17 million jury verdict reached in an underlying negligence lawsuit brought against the insured and the property manager, holding that the policy’s fire exclusion bars coverage.

  • September 29, 2026

    Georgia High Court Refuses To Review Reversal In Sexual Abuse Coverage Suit

    ATLANTA — The Georgia Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of an appeals panel’s reversal of a lower court’s $345 million judgment against insurers in a breach of contract lawsuit seeking coverage for a school insured for a consent judgment that was awarded against the insured and its teacher who was accused of sexually abusing 20 students between 1974 and 1994.

  • September 29, 2026

    Judge: Fact Issue Precludes Summary Judgment In Coverage Suit Over $4.2M Settlement

    SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on Sept. 28 denied cross-motions for partial summary judgment on an assignee’s breach of contract counterclaim in a senior care liability insurer’s lawsuit seeking a declaration that it has no further duty to defend its insured against an underlying negligence and abuse action or indemnify the insured for the $4.2 million underlying settlement agreement, holding that summary judgment for either party is precluded by a single factual issue regarding whether the insurer was prejudiced by the insured’s decision to enter the underlying settlement agreement.

  • September 29, 2026

    Hostile Fire Exception May Operate To Provide Coverage, Underlying Plaintiff Says

    EL PASO, Texas — A commercial general liability insurer’s motion for summary judgment must be denied because the insurer failed to attach the correct insurance policy to its motion and because the insurer’s hostile fire exception to the pollution exclusion may operate to provide coverage for an underlying carbon monoxide poisoning suit filed against the insureds, the underlying plaintiff says in a Sept. 28 response to the insurer’s motion.

  • September 29, 2026

    Insurers: No Coverage Owed For Suit Alleging Insured Sent False, Misleading Emails

    SEATTLE — Commercial and umbrella liability insurers filed a declaratory judgment complaint in a Washington federal court, alleging they have no duty to defend or indemnify their mutual insured against an underlying class action lawsuit alleging that it violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) by repeatedly sending emails to consumers with false or misleading end dates of promotional sales for its products in the subject line.

  • September 28, 2026

    Judge Directs Parties To Propose Certified Question In Opioid Coverage Dispute

    SPARTANBURG, S.C. — Finding there is no controlling precedent from the South Carolina Supreme Court as to the meaning of “damages because of bodily injury” in the context of a coverage dispute for more than 350 lawsuits seeking damages that were allegedly caused by the distribution of opioids in a manner that caused addiction, injury and death, a federal judge in South Carolina denied cross-motions for summary judgment filed by a drug distributor insured and its insurers and directed the parties to confer on a proposed question or questions to certify to the state’s high court.

  • September 28, 2026

    Judge Allows Some Claims To Proceed In Cyber Insurance Dispute Over Ransomware

    CHICAGO — An Illinois judge dismissed without prejudice claims for breach of contract and vexatious and unreasonable delay under Illinois Insurance Code Section 155 against an insurance firm but allowed these claims to proceed against an insurance producer in an insured’s lawsuit seeking $4.89 million in cyber insurance coverage for a 2023 ransomware attack, holding that the claims must be dismissed against the firm because the policy is ambiguous by failing to indicate whether the firm or producer will pay the claim.