-
April 28, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s ruling in a dispute over coverage for environmental contamination remediation costs after determining that an annual aggregate limit provision in an umbrella liability insurer’s policies is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of coverage for the insured.
-
April 28, 2026
LOS ANGELES — An insurer maintains that reconsideration of a California federal judge’s finding that the insurer has a duty to defend its insured for underlying silica bodily injury suits is necessary because the judge failed to consider the total pollution exclusion in the insurer’s policies under the most recent and applicable California authority.
-
April 28, 2026
PITTSBURGH — An insurer’s motion for reconsideration of a Pennsylvania federal judge’s ruling regarding the available limits of an insurer’s policies for underlying asbestos claims must be denied because the insurer failed to show that there was any manifest error of law or fact and because the judge properly interpreted a noncumulation clause, an insured says in response to the insurer’s motion.
-
April 27, 2026
DETROIT — A reinsurer and a claims handler argue in a supplemental brief filed in Michigan federal court that a captive insurer’s claims against the nonparty claims handler in a dispute over coverage for Legionnaires’ disease claims under a reinsurance agreement fail because the complaint alleges no duty, breach or concrete injury sufficient to establish a justiciable controversy and, in any event, concern issues arising out of the agreement that must be resolved in a pending arbitration.
-
April 23, 2026
OCALA, Fla. — Summary judgment is not warranted for a primary insurer nor an excess insurer because questions of fact exist as to whether the primary insurer attempted to settle all underlying claims related to the exposure of Legionella bacteria in a hot tub before exhausting its primary policy limits, a Florida federal judge said in denying both insurers’ motions for summary judgment.
-
April 21, 2026
DOVER, Del. — An insurer failed to show that an interlocutory appeal of a Delaware judge’s ruling that a pollution exclusion applies only to traditional environmental pollution claims is warranted, a panel of the Delaware Supreme Court said April 20 in affirming the lower court’s denial of the insurer’s motion to certify the lower court’s ruling for interlocutory appeal.
-
April 21, 2026
ORLANDO, Fla. — An insurer’s suit seeking a declaration that it has no duty to indemnify its insured for an underlying suit seeking damages as a result of mold exposure must be dismissed because a determination of the insurer’s duty to indemnify cannot be made until after the underlying suit is resolved, a Florida federal judge said April 20 in granting the insured condominium association’s motion to dismiss.
-
April 17, 2026
SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge reversed course and vacated a prior ruling that granted an insurer’s motion to dismiss an insured’s complaint seeking coverage under excess policies for environmental contamination at a gas station formerly operated by the insured because the insured’s claims are not barred by claim preclusion as the insured’s suit seeks a ruling only on the insurer’s duty to defend one underlying suit as opposed to the insurer’s duty to indemnify the insured against environmental liability claims in general.
-
April 17, 2026
LOS ANGELES — Reconsideration of a California federal judge’s finding that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured for underlying silica bodily injury suits is not warranted because the insurer repeats the same arguments presented in its summary judgment briefing and already rejected by the court, the insured maintains in response to the insurer’s motion.
-
April 16, 2026
DETROIT — A captive insurer filed a supplemental brief in Michigan federal court arguing that its dispute with a reinsurer and a claims handler over coverage for Legionnaires’ disease claims under a reinsurance agreement to which the claims handler is not a party presents a justiciable controversy that is not subject to a pending arbitration with its reinsurer after a judge ordered briefing on whether its declaratory claim against a nonparty is subject to arbitration or may proceed in court.
-
April 15, 2026
LOS ANGELES — No coverage is owed to an insured for a power outage stemming from water leaking into a vault where electrical equipment is stored because the all-risk policy’s exclusion for repeated or continuous water leakage applies as a bar to coverage, the Second District California Court of Appeal said in affirming a trial court’s judgment.
-
April 13, 2026
LOS ANGELES — An insured is owed a defense for underlying bodily injury suits stemming from exposure to silica and other toxins in the insured’s stone products because the underlying suits contain allegations that fall outside of the policies’ silica exclusion, a California federal judge said in denying the insurers’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
-
April 13, 2026
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by insurers seeking a declaration that no coverage is owed to an insured for underlying silica exposure personal injury suits because the silica exclusion cannot apply as the underlying plaintiffs allege that substances other than silica may have caused their injuries.
-
April 13, 2026
NEW YORK — A New York County Supreme Court justice granted a claims management company’s motion to dismiss a reciprocal insurer’s complaint without prejudice because the insurer has not yet sustained damages as the insurer is required to provide a defense to an insured school district for underlying toxic exposure lawsuits until a determination on the applicability of the pollution exclusion is made.
-
April 10, 2026
NEW YORK — A New York County Supreme Court justice denied a motion to dismiss filed by insureds seeking coverage for environmental contamination at several of their New Jersey-based industrial properties, rejecting the insureds’ argument that the insurers’ declaratory judgment suit should be dismissed in deference to the insureds’ later-filed suit pending in New Jersey state court.
-
April 10, 2026
WILMINGTON, Del. — A woman asserting an asbestos personal injury claim against a defunct gasket company failed to prove that the company’s certificate of cancellation should be nullified due to an improper dissolution, a Delaware vice chancellor ruled.
-
April 09, 2026
PITTSBURGH — A Pennsylvania federal judge erred in determining that the limits of an insurer’s policy, issued in 1985, were not reduced by payments made under a 1977 policy because every asbestos claim that was paid under the 1977 policy was also payable under the 1985 policy, the insurer says in a motion for reconsideration.
-
April 08, 2026
ST. PAUL, Minn. — A district court did not err in finding that a pollution exclusion bars coverage for an underlying bodily injury claim stemming from carbon monoxide exposure because carbon monoxide qualifies as a pollutant and the carbon monoxide was dispersed, as required by the pollution exclusion, from a portable heater, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said April 7 in affirming the lower court’s ruling in favor of an insurer.
-
April 07, 2026
PITTSBURGH — A Pennsylvania federal judge granted an insured’s motion for partial summary judgment in a dispute over coverage for underlying asbestos bodily injury claims after determining that the limits of two insurance policies issued in 1984 and 1985 were not reduced by payments made by other insurers under policies issued prior to 1984 and 1985 pursuant to the language of the policies’ noncumulation clauses.
-
April 07, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal magistrate judge found that no coverage is owed to an insured for one of many underlying lawsuits filed against it alleging injuries related to exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) allegedly contained in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) that were manufactured and sold by the insured after determining that the underlying suit at issue involves exposure that occurred decades before the insured’s existence.
-
April 07, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — An insured’s breach of contract and bad faith suit filed against its environmental liability insurer after the insurer denied coverage for lost rental income incurred as a result of lead and asbestos abatement work cannot proceed because the insured failed to file suit within the applicable four-year statute of limitations, a California federal judge said in granting the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
-
April 06, 2026
LOS ANGELES — Reconsideration of a California federal judge’s finding that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured for underlying silica bodily injury suits is warranted because the judge failed to address controlling California authority that is relevant to the application of a total pollution exclusion in the insurer’s policies as opposed to an absolute pollution exclusion, the insurer contends in a motion to reconsider.
-
April 03, 2026
SAN ANTONIO — A Texas federal judge ruled, in denying a motion to compel appraisal, that an insurer’s request for an appraisal following unsuccessful mediation in a dispute with an elderly woman over a water damage claim was “unreasonably delayed” given that it was filed 22 months after the woman filed her claim and 10 months after she filed a federal lawsuit alleging breach of contract, bad faith, violations of the state insurance code and more.
-
March 31, 2026
HOUSTON — An additional insured is not entitled to coverage for business interruption losses caused by quarantine orders issued in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic because the commercial property policy’s pollution and contamination exclusion bars coverage, the 14th Texas Court of Appeals said March 31 in affirming a trial court’s ruling in favor of the insurer on breach of contract and extracontractual claims.
-
March 31, 2026
NEW YORK — A contractor’s pollution liability insurer has no duty to provide coverage for an underlying asbestos contamination damages suit filed against an insured because the contamination occurred at a subcontractor’s facility and is therefore barred by the policy’s owned property exclusion, a New York justice said in granting the insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the insured’s breach of contract and bad faith claims.