-
May 20, 2026
PADUCAH, Ky. — A reinsurer and a ferrosilicon producer filed summary judgment motions in a Kentucky federal court in a pollution cleanup cost coverage dispute, with the reinsurer seeking dismissal of all claims against it on the basis that it is only an indemnity reinsurer with no contractual duties to the producer and the producer seeking rulings that its insurer and the reinsurer must cover more than $4.6 million in disputed claim costs, plus future regulatory compliance costs, under a pollution legal liability policy.
-
May 19, 2026
LOS ANGELES — An insured filed a motion to stay its silica coverage suit pending in California federal court until the underlying silica bodily injury suits are resolved, noting that a stay would prevent the insured from having to litigate on two fronts.
-
May 19, 2026
SEATTLE — An insurer says an insured’s suit seeking coverage for environmental contamination at a gas station formerly operated by the insured should be stayed until a trial court issues a ruling on a motion to confirm the intended scope of relief because the state trial court’s ruling can help guide the disposition of the insured’s federal court suit.
-
May 15, 2026
CLEVELAND — A reinsurer seeks a declaration in an Ohio federal court that it has no obligation under facultative reinsurance certificates to reimburse an insurer for a $31 million guaranty settlement paid in an environmental coverage dispute over remediation costs at a Kentucky aerospace manufacturing site.
-
May 15, 2026
SHREVEPORT, La. — Breach of contract and bad faith claims alleged against a homeowners insurer in a water damage coverage dispute will proceed because questions of fact exist as to whether the insured maintained the heat in the home at the required temperature in accordance with the policy’s reasonable care requirement, a Louisiana federal judge said.
-
May 14, 2026
JACKSON, Miss. — An earth movement exclusion clearly bars coverage for foundation damage caused by a burst water pipe and an additional coverage provision for loss of land stability does not apply to the insureds’ loss, a Mississippi federal judge said in granting an insurer’s motion to dismiss the insureds’ extracontractual claims.
-
May 13, 2026
NEW YORK — In a case brought by a developer’s insurer against a subcontractor’s insurer, a federal judge in New York granted summary judgment to the developer’s insurer, finding that the subcontractor’s insurer owed a duty to defend the developer as an additional insured in an underlying case alleging that the subcontractor’s work may have contributed to water damage in a mixed-use building.
-
May 12, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should grant a petition for panel or en banc rehearing in a dispute over coverage for environmental contamination remediation costs because the panel’s finding that an annual aggregate limit provision in the umbrella liability insurer’s policies is ambiguous conflicts with a prior decision issued by the Ninth Circuit, the insurer says in its petition.
-
May 11, 2026
LOS ANGELES — An interlocutory appeal is warranted in a silica exposure coverage suit because a California federal judge’s order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the insurers involves questions of law regarding the scope and application of silica exclusions in the insurers’ policies, the insurers say in a motion for certification of interlocutory appeal.
-
May 08, 2026
PITTSBURGH — No coverage is owed to an insured for an underlying environmental contamination suit filed against it because the underlying claims are barred by the pollution exclusion included in primary and excess policies, the insurers maintain in a complaint filed in Pennsylvania federal court.
-
May 08, 2026
CHICAGO — No coverage is owed under primary and umbrella policies for a state environmental agency’s notice of violation because the policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage, two insurers say in a complaint filed in Illinois federal court.
-
May 07, 2026
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — No coverage is owed to an insured for remediation costs associated with contamination discovered at an insured shopping center because the policy’s exclusion for site development and construction activities clearly bars coverage, a Florida federal judge said May 6 in granting the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
-
May 06, 2026
NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s ruling that insurers owe a duty to defend an insured municipality against an environmental contamination claim, agreeing with the lower court that the policies’ fire or emergency exceptions to the pollution exclusion may operate to provide coverage.
-
May 05, 2026
NEW YORK — A New York federal magistrate judge granted an insured’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint in an environmental contamination coverage dispute after determining that a bad faith claim in the proposed amended complaint is not duplicative of the insured’s breach of contract claim because the bad faith claim is based entirely on the insurer’s handling of the insured’s claim.
-
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.