-
September 29, 2026
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
LOS ANGELES — An insurer filed a notice of appeal on Sept. 28 to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals following a California federal judge’s ruling that a pollution exclusion does not relieve the insurer of its duty to defend its insured against an underlying personal injury suit stemming from a claimant’s exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas.
-
September 29, 2026
LANSING, Mich. — Underlying plaintiffs who filed two class action lawsuits seeking damages caused by lead-contaminated water supplied by a city argue that the city’s insurers have a duty to defend and indemnify the city for a $25 million consent settlement reached in the underlying class action suits because the insurers cannot dispute that the settlement between the city and the underlying plaintiffs was “reasonable and in good faith,” the underlying plaintiffs say in support of a motion for summary judgment filed in Michigan federal court.
-
September 29, 2026
SALEM, Ore. — Review of an Oregon appellate court’s allocation of coverage damages in a contribution coverage dispute between primary and excess insurers over environmental contamination costs incurred by the insureds is not warranted because the appellate court correctly applied the plain language of Oregon’s independent counsel statute and the primary insurer does not dispute the interpretation, a settling insurer says in response to the primary insurer’s petition for review filed in the Oregon Supreme Court.
-
September 28, 2026
WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal bankruptcy court properly enjoined settling insurers’ claims seeking contribution from nonsettling insurers and did not err in permitting holders of temporarily allowed but not-yet-filed talc liability claims to vote on the Chapter 11 plan of liquidation of asbestos talc debtor AIO US Inc. and affiliates, a Delaware federal judge held Sept. 25 in affirming confirmation of the plan over the objections of certain insurers.
-
September 25, 2026
AUSTIN, Texas — Following a settlement between two insurers, a Texas federal judge dismissed without prejudice the general liability insurer’s suit seeking reimbursement from a second insurer for the settlement of an underlying chemical exposure bodily injury suit filed against an insured.
-
September 25, 2026
CLEVELAND — Following an Ohio federal judge’s finding that an occupational disease exclusion relieves a primary insurer of its duty to defend or indemnify its insured in underlying lawsuits stemming from exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the insured filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
-
September 25, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 24 affirmed a district court’s ruling that a pollution liability insurer has no duty to defend its insured against underlying suits stemming from the insured’s environmental remediation work, agreeing with the lower court that the pollution conditions at issue were not unexpected or unintended as required by the policies.
-
September 22, 2026
DENVER — In a unanimous ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court on Sept. 21 answered “no” to a question certified to the court from a federal court asking whether umbrella/excess policies are triggered because payment cannot be collected from the insolvent primary carrier despite an occurrence being otherwise covered, finding that the terms of the umbrella policies do not require that insurer to “step into the shoes of an insolvent, scheduled underlying insurer.”
-
September 22, 2026
LOS ANGELES — An insurer filed a motion for reconsideration in California federal court, arguing that reconsideration of the denial of the insurer’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal is warranted based on another California federal judge’s recent decisions certifying interlocutory appeals in similar silica exposure coverage suits.
-
September 22, 2026
NEW YORK — An insured and its insurer filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in an environmental contamination coverage suit after reaching an agreement in the insured’s suit seeking reimbursement of costs related to a pollution incident.
-
September 22, 2026
LOS ANGELES — Insureds who owned, operated and managed an apartment complex are not entitled to a defense or indemnity for an underlying wrongful death suit stemming from a tenant’s death caused by exposure to mold and mold spores in a rental apartment because the policies’ fungi or bacteria exclusions and pollution exclusions bar coverage, the insurers say in a California state court complaint.
-
September 21, 2026
SHERMAN, Texas — A Texas federal judge dismissed Texas state law claims brought against insurers in an environmental contamination coverage dispute after determining that New York law applies under the policies’ choice-of-law provision.
-
September 21, 2026
HONOLULU — Two insurers notified a federal court in Hawaii that they are appealing the court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of a petroleum company insured in a coverage dispute over claims that the insured is responsible for the damaging effects of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and its failure to disclose or warn of the hazards of using the fossil fuel products that it sold into the stream of commerce.
-
September 18, 2026
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A pollution exclusion bars coverage for damages caused by sewage-contaminated water that entered a condominium, a Florida federal judge said Sept. 17 after finding that the Florida Supreme Court’s logic in interpreting an almost identical pollution exclusion supports the application of the exclusion as a bar to coverage for the condominium owner’s damages.
-
September 16, 2026
CLEVELAND — An insurer seeking to avoid reimbursing a reinsurer’s $31 million environmental settlement told an Ohio federal court that the reinsurer’s counterclaims for breach of contract, equitable subrogation and unjust enrichment fail because the payment arose from the reinsurer’s separate guaranty obligations rather than liabilities under the reinsured policy and because the reinsurer lacks contractual rights to enforce the facultative reinsurance certificates.
-
September 15, 2026
EL PASO, Texas — A commercial general liability insurer argues in a Sept. 14 motion for summary judgment filed in Texas federal court that it has no duty to defend its insured against an underlying suit stemming from carbon monoxide poisoning at an insured motel pursuant to a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that held that a pollution exclusion applies to injuries caused by the release of carbon monoxide.
-
September 15, 2026
SEATTLE — An excess insurer has a duty to defend its insured in an underlying environmental contamination lawsuit because a 2016 order issued by a state court in a similar suit involving many of the same parties does not have preclusive effect and cannot be applied to excuse the insurer from its duty to defend, the insured says in a motion for partial summary judgment filed in Washington federal court.
-
September 15, 2026
OXFORD, Miss. — No coverage is owed to an insured for underlying wrongful death and negligence claims stemming from exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater that allegedly was not properly remediated because coverage is barred by the applicable policy’s total pollution exclusion, the insurer says in its reply in support of summary judgment.
-
September 15, 2026
CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. — A New York federal magistrate judge granted a homeowners insurer’s motion to dismiss an insured’s claim seeking declaratory judgment in a water damage coverage dispute after determining that the claim is duplicative of the insured’s breach of contract claim.
-
September 14, 2026
TRENTON, N.J. — Gasoline supplier Hess Corp. filed a complaint in New Jersey federal court, claiming it is entitled as an additional insured to coverage for two underlying bodily injury lawsuits seeking damages as a result of exposure to benzene in gasoline supplied by Hess.
-
September 14, 2026
TRENTON, N.J. — A New Jersey federal bankruptcy judge should not rule on the adequacy of the disclosure statement for the reorganization plan of new Chapter 11 debtors Uniroyal Holding Inc. and an affiliate because the document that sets out how the debtors’ postbankruptcy asbestos personal injury trust will operate has not been filed yet, three of the debtors’ insurers argue in their objection to the proposed statement.
-
September 08, 2026
CLEVELAND — A primary insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured in underlying lawsuits stemming from exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) because the policies’ occupational disease exclusion clearly applies as a bar to coverage, an Ohio federal judge said in granting the primary insurer’s motion for summary judgment and denying the insured’s motion for summary judgment.
-
September 08, 2026
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge granted an additional two motions for certification of interlocutory appeals filed by insurers in two silica exposure coverage suits after again determining that a “substantial ground for difference of opinion” exists under California law between the concurrent causation doctrine and anti-concurrent causation clauses used in the insurers’ policies.
-
September 08, 2026
ST. LOUIS — A district court erred in determining that a second-level umbrella insurer owes coverage to an additional insured for underlying personal injury suits stemming from an oil and gas well explosion because an exception to the umbrella insurer’s pollution exclusion cannot be applied to provide coverage based on the additional insured’s failure to provide notice of the explosion within 21 days as required by the exception, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said in vacating the lower court’s $25 million judgment against the insurer.