-
September 23, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer filed an answering brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, asking it to affirm a federal judge in California’s ruling that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify an additional insured for the amount the additional insured paid to resolve a third party’s presuit claims, arguing that the policies required that a suit be filed against the additional insured for those duties to be triggered.
-
September 23, 2026
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A federal magistrate judge in New York recommended finding that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor in an underlying action over property damage after a busway duct explosion because the underlying action alleges damages to the property that went beyond the contractor’s own work, which created the possibility of coverage under the policy.
-
September 23, 2026
BOSTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts denied a construction management firm’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of its Massachusetts statutory claims against a subcontractor’s default insurer, which had been dismissed because the policy requires the application of New York law, holding that the firm’s argument that Massachusetts law voids foreign choice-of-law provisions in insurance policies made in Massachusetts was made too late.
-
September 23, 2026
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington held that an insured was entitled to $8,463 in damages in a case it brought against its plumber’s insurers seeking garnishment of the plumber’s policy to cover damages caused by the plumber’s faulty work.
-
September 22, 2026
BATON ROUGE, La. — A homeowner appealed a federal judge in Louisiana’s grant of summary judgment in favor of his insurer, in which the judge held that the homeowner’s insurer owed no coverage to the homeowner for damage a contractor did to the homeowner’s patio because the damage was caused by the contractor’s faulty workmanship, which was an excluded cause of loss.
-
September 18, 2026
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York denied a general contractor’s motion to dismiss a complaint filed by the state of New York’s insurer seeking defense and indemnification in several underlying actions stemming from a Long Island Expressway accident allegedly caused, at least in part, by the general contractor’s negligence, finding that the state’s insurer plausibly pleaded that the contractor’s insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify the state in those underlying actions.
-
September 14, 2026
TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida on Sept. 11 adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and held that an insurer had no duty to defend a concrete paver manufacturer in an underlying dispute over defective pavers at an RV park, holding that the insurer owed no duty to defend because the defective pavers did not cause physical injury to other tangible property.
-
September 10, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A group of homeowners filed a reply brief in support of their petition for a writ of certiorari, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals violated Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins by applying a tract-housing exclusion to bar insurance coverage for construction defect claims against a development company.
-
August 31, 2026
PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge in Pennsylvania denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss property owners’ complaint against it for denying the property owners’ claims after a utility company’s contractor damaged the sidewalk in front of their building, an underground support structure and a large room beneath the sidewalk, finding that the property owners properly alleged that the insurer breached the insurance policy by refusing to provide indemnification.
-
August 21, 2026
CHICAGO — A federal judge dismissed the claims a contractor’s insurer brought against a subcontractor’s insurers over coverage in an underlying construction defect suit, finding that the subcontractor’s policies’ self-insured retention (SIR) endorsements relieved the insurers of a duty to defend any insured under the policies.
-
August 21, 2026
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A construction company filed a response to objections to the recommendation of a federal magistrate judge in Florida that the company’s breach of contract claim against an insurer should not be dismissed, arguing that the magistrate judge’s reasoning and analysis are sound and that the relevant Florida statute does not apply because the assignment of insurance benefits at issue clearly assigned the benefits to the construction company.
-
August 21, 2026
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California appellate panel affirmed summary judgment for an insurer, finding that a condominium building owner was not an additional insured under its general contractor’s liability policies and, therefore, was not entitled to coverage for an underlying construction defect suit brought by a condominium unit owner.
-
August 21, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — Insurers argue that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should affirm a lower court’s order granting their motion for summary judgment against a construction manager, contending that summary judgment was proper because the policy’s course of construction exclusion (COCE) precluded coverage for the construction manager’s liability in an underlying lawsuit.
-
August 21, 2026
TAMPA, Fla. — An insurer asked a Florida federal court to adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the insurer had no duty to defend a concrete paver manufacturer in an underlying dispute over defective pavers at an RV park, agreeing with the magistrate judge that the defective pavers did not cause physical injury to other tangible property.
-
August 21, 2026
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York found that an insurer owed a piping contractor a duty to defend against an underlying action regarding damage due to leaking pipes the contractor installed at three properties because damage to one of the properties occurred during the policy period, but that it was premature to determine whether the insurer had a duty to indemnify the contractor because the underlying action has not yet been resolved and it is possible that a policy exclusion could preclude the duty to indemnify.
-
August 21, 2026
NEW YORK — A developer’s insurer and a subcontractor’s insurer filed a stipulation to dismiss after reaching a settlement in a case brought by the developer’s insurer regarding coverage in an underlying case alleging that the subcontractor’s work may have contributed to water damage in a mixed-use building.
-
August 20, 2026
LOS ANGELES — After a federal judge in California denied its amended renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), an insurer appealed the opinion to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The case against the insurer was brought regarding coverage for damage to an apartment building that occurred when the building was being reroofed, and the insurer failed to persuade the judge that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict awarding the building owner damages.
-
August 20, 2026
BOISE, Idaho — After an apartment building owner’s insurer and an architect agreed to dismiss all the claims the insurer asserted against the architect in a suit stemming from a fire-suppression water line freezing and bursting, a federal judge in Idaho issued an order granting the stipulation of dismissal.
-
August 20, 2026
FRESNO, Calif. — An excess insurer and a general contractor filed a notice of settlement in federal court in California on Aug. 19, notifying the court that they have settled the insurer’s action against the general contractor for reimbursement of funds it paid to settle an underlying construction defect action.
-
August 20, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer that was granted summary judgment in its case against a concrete supplier seeking a declaration that it did not have a duty to indemnify the supplier in an underlying action over defective concrete filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment to add prejudgment interest, arguing that it is entitled to interest from the date the insurer made payment toward a settlement of the underlying action on behalf of the concrete supplier.
-
August 20, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California granted an insurer’s unopposed motion for summary judgment on its claims against its paint contractor insured in the insurer’s suit seeking a declaration that it did not have a duty to defend and indemnify the contractor or others in underlying actions stemming from a fire that damaged property in San Francisco.
-
August 20, 2026
PRESCOTT, Ariz. — After the parties to a coverage action regarding water intrusion stemming from defective construction work that caused damage to an apartment complex reached a settlement, a federal judge in Arizona issued a conditional dismissal order.
-
August 19, 2026
FREDERICKSBURG, Va. — A Virginia Court of Appeals panel affirmed a lower court’s judgment in favor of an insurer, finding that because a construction manager failed to timely notify the insurer about a property owner’s counterclaim against it for alleged defects in the building of a museum, the construction manager was not owed coverage.
-
August 10, 2026
NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel remanded for further explanation a federal judge in Texas’ grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurer in a builder’s suit seeking indemnification for an arbitration award for damages caused by construction defects in a home the builder built, finding that the judge had not provided a sufficient explanation for the basis of his ruling.
-
August 05, 2026
RICHMOND, Va. — A Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel found that a lower court was right to grant summary judgment in favor of an insurance carrier and its claims administrator on a general contractor’s claims seeking damages under West Virginia’s Hayseeds doctrine — which allows insured who substantially prevail against their insurers to recover attorney fees and other consequential damages — and for statutory bad faith arising from the insurer’s handling of a construction defect coverage dispute, holding that no reasonable jury would find in the contractor’s favor.