-
July 14, 2026
SALEM, Ore. — On remand from the Oregon Supreme Court, the majority of the Oregon Court of Appeals determined that a trial court erred in including attorney fees in the allocation of coverage damages in a contribution coverage dispute between primary and excess insurers over costs incurred by the insureds and related to environmental contamination.
-
July 14, 2026
LOS ANGELES — An insured distributor of stone products and countertops claims in a complaint filed in California federal court that its insurer breached its contract and acted in bad faith by relying on its policies’ silica exclusion to deny coverage for the majority of 450 underlying bodily injury suits filed against the insured by individuals who claim that they were injured as a result of exposure to silica and other toxins in the insured’s stone products.
-
July 14, 2026
GREEN BAY, Wis. — An excess insurer’s counterclaim alleged against three of the insured’s other excess insurers cannot proceed because it is duplicative of the other excess insurers’ claim for declaratory relief in a complaint seeking reimbursement for the settlement of an underlying asbestos personal injury suit filed against an insured, a Wisconsin federal judge said in striking the counterclaim.
-
July 09, 2026
MUSKOGEE, Okla. — A federal magistrate judge in Oklahoma granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a contractor’s action alleging breach of good faith and fair dealing after the insurer denied coverage for an underlying water damage arising from the contractor’s roof work, finding that an open structure water damage exclusion precluded coverage.
-
July 08, 2026
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge denied an insurer’s motion for certification for an interlocutory appeal of an order in which the judge found that silica and total pollution exclusions do not bar coverage for underlying silica bodily injury suits filed against an insured after determining that the insurer failed to show that the order presents substantial grounds for a difference of opinion.
-
July 08, 2026
DALLAS — A Texas federal judge granted summary judgment in favor of a property insurer after determining that the insured failed to show that coverage is owed for water damage in his home and failed to show that the insurer’s denial of coverage was not reasonable.
-
July 07, 2026
TUCSON, Ariz. — An insurer owes no duty to cover a bodily injury claim filed against an insured health club by a club member who contracted Legionnaires’ disease in the club’s sauna because the policy’s fungi or bacteria exclusion clearly applies as a bar to coverage, an Arizona federal magistrate judge said July 6 in recommending that the insurer’s motion for summary judgment be granted.
-
July 07, 2026
PALM BEACH, Fla. — An insurer’s suit seeking a declaration that no coverage is owed for damages caused by the rupture of a sewage pipe should be dismissed or stayed until the underlying suit filed against the insureds arising from the pipe’s rupture is resolved, an additional insured argues in a motion to dismiss filed in Florida federal court.
-
July 07, 2026
CAMDEN, N.J. — A New Jersey federal judge partially granted an insured’s motion for summary judgment after determining that coverage is owed for environmental contamination claims; however, the judge did not enter a final declaratory judgment in favor of the insured because questions of fact exist regarding the insurer’s rescission counterclaim.
-
July 07, 2026
TRENTON, N.J. — A New Jersey federal judge granted an insurer’s motion to dismiss a breach of contract claim in a coverage dispute over environmental remediation costs after determining that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the insurer’s breach of contract caused the plaintiffs to incur a loss.
-
July 07, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of a homeowners insurer in a water and mold damage coverage dispute because the insured failed to file suit within a year of the insurer’s denial of coverage as required by the policy’s one-year suit limitations provision, a California appellate panel said.
-
July 02, 2026
CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 1 affirmed a lower federal court’s ruling in favor of The J.M. Smucker Co. in its breach of contract and declaratory judgment lawsuit seeking coverage for bodily injuries resulting from the alleged bacterial contamination of Smucker’s Jif-brand peanut butter, holding that the alleged salmonella outbreak is the lone occurrence and the policy’s Lot Endorsement does not convert one occurrence into many.
-
June 30, 2026
PHILADELPHIA — A policy’s pollution exclusion bars coverage for the infiltration of dust into an insured home because dust qualifies as an irritant or contaminant, which are excluded causes of loss under the exclusion, a Pennsylvania federal judge said in granting the homeowners insurer’s motion for summary judgment.
-
June 30, 2026
PADUCAH, Ky. — A ferrosilicon producer in a pollution cleanup coverage dispute filed its third summary judgment motion, opposing a reinsurer’s bid for dismissal and arguing that the contractual record establishes that the reinsurer assumed an insurer’s liabilities under a pollution legal liability policy and cannot avoid the suit by relying on an affidavit addressing discovery-barred topics or on inapposite reinsurance authority.
-
June 29, 2026
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — An insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify an insured for an underlying carbon monoxide poisoning suit because the policies’ total pollution exclusion clearly bars coverage, a California federal judge said in granting the insurer’s motion for summary judgment.
-
June 26, 2026
PORTLAND, Ore. — A district court properly dismissed a bad faith suit filed against the insurer of the state of Montana by underlying claimants in asbestos bodily injury suits because the insurer had a reasonable basis to contest coverage for the underlying asbestos claims filed against its insured, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said in an unpublished opinion.
-
June 25, 2026
INDIANAPOLIS — An insurer owes coverage for an underlying wrongful death suit stemming from methanol poisoning caused by the ingestion of an ethanol drink product sold by the insured because methanol is not identified as a pollutant in the pollution exclusion, included in the commercial general liability portion of a policy, the Indiana Court of Appeals said in reversing a trial court’s ruling.
-
June 25, 2026
BOSTON — An insured and its insurer filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in Massachusetts federal court following resolution of the insured’s claim seeking coverage for underlying environmental contamination lawsuits.
-
June 24, 2026
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A Connecticut federal bankruptcy judge lifted the automatic stay in the case of asbestos debtor The Nash Engineering Co. so a declaratory judgment action filed by two of its umbrella insurers to determine the rights and obligations of the debtor and insurers with respect to asbestos claims can proceed.
-
June 23, 2026
OWENSBORO, Ky. — A breach of contract claim will proceed against a homeowners insurer because questions of fact exist on whether damage to the foundation of an insured home was preexisting damage and, therefore, excluded under the policy, a Kentucky federal judge said in denying the insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.
-
June 23, 2026
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A California federal judge dismissed the employer of an underlying plaintiff from an insurer’s suit seeking a declaration that no coverage is owed for an underlying carbon monoxide poisoning suit after the insurer notified the court that it was voluntarily dismissing the employer from the suit.
-
June 23, 2026
LANSING, Mich. — The majority of a Michigan Court of Appeals panel affirmed a trial court’s ruling in favor of a commercial property insurer, agreeing with the lower court that no coverage is owed for water damage in an insured building because the building was vacant when a frozen sprinkler pipe burst.
-
June 22, 2026
TAMPA, Fla. — A Florida federal magistrate judge granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment after determining that a breach of contract suit filed by insureds seeking coverage under a rental property insurance policy for water and mold damage cannot proceed because the insureds failed to file suit within five years of the date of loss.
-
June 18, 2026
AUSTIN, Texas — Two insurers embroiled in a dispute over coverage for the settlement of an underlying lawsuit arising out of an employee’s injuries caused by exposure to polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and other chemicals filed a joint notice of settlement in Texas federal court after reaching an agreement to resolve their claims.
-
June 17, 2026
AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Supreme Court granted Exxon Mobile Corp.’s petition seeking review of an appellate court’s ruling that reversed and rendered judgment that Exxon take nothing against its umbrella insurer in its lawsuit seeking coverage for an underlying $35 million injury settlement arising from an oil refinery explosion.