-
November 03, 2026
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Nov. 2 refused to reconsider an order denying an insurer’s motion for certification for interlocutory appeal after determining that reconsideration is not warranted based on another California federal judge’s recent decisions certifying interlocutory appeals in similar silica exposure coverage suits because the other decisions are nonprecedential and do not provide sufficient grounds for reconsideration of the insurer’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal in the instant suit.
-
November 03, 2026
EL PASO, Texas — Following a Texas federal judge’s order striking a commercial general liability insurer’s amended motion for summary judgment in a carbon monoxide poisoning coverage suit, the insurer filed a motion for leave to file an amended motion for summary judgment, arguing that the court should allow the amended motion because it corrects only an attachment error and would not cause prejudice to the insureds or underlying plaintiff.
-
November 03, 2026
LANSING, Mich. — Insurers involved in a coverage dispute stemming from lead-contaminated water supplied by an insured city in their reply in support of a motion for partial summary judgment continue to deny that they have a duty to defend or indemnify their insured for a $25 million consent settlement reached by the city and underlying plaintiffs, maintaining that the policies’ lead and pollution exclusions apply as a bar to coverage.
-
November 03, 2026
SEATTLE — An insured maintains that its motion for partial summary judgment in an environmental contamination coverage dispute pending in Washington federal court should be granted because the insurer does not dispute that the underlying suit for which the insured seeks coverage is “conceivably covered” under the excess policy.
-
November 03, 2026
CHICAGO — An Illinois state judge granted an insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a dispute over coverage for underlying bodily injury suits stemming from emissions at the insured’s manufacturing facility.
-
October 29, 2026
WILMINGTON, Del. — Certain insurers appealed a Delaware federal judge’s decision overruling their objections and affirming confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan of liquidation of asbestos talc debtor AIO US Inc. and affiliates to the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
-
October 27, 2026
SEATTLE — An insured’s motion for partial summary judgment in an environmental contamination coverage dispute should be denied because the insured is attempting to avoid the preclusive effect of a 2016 order issued by a state court in a similar suit involving many of the same parties and finding that the excess insurer does not have a duty to defend, the excess insurer tells a Washington federal court in its response to the insured’s motion.
-
October 27, 2026
PITTSBURGH — An insured filed suit in Pennsylvania state court against a number of its excess insurers, seeking a declaration that the insurers owe more than $42 million for investigation and remediation costs incurred by the insured for releases of contaminants from one of its former steel facilities.
-
October 27, 2026
LANSING, Mich. — A show-cause hearing in a lead-contaminated water coverage dispute pending in Michigan federal court was canceled and adjourned until an attorney’s objections to the show-cause order are resolved, according to a notice filed on the case docket.
-
October 23, 2026
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 22 affirmed a lower federal court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of an insurer in a coverage dispute alleging that the insurer wrongfully denied or underpaid the insureds’ 2021 and 2022 claims for water damage arising from frozen pipes, agreeing with the lower court that the insureds failed to timely file their lawsuit pursuant to their policy’s statute of limitations.
-
October 22, 2026
CHICAGO — An insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds for an underlying lead paint bodily injury suit because the policies’ lead contamination exclusions clearly apply to relieve the insurer of any duty to defend or indemnify, an Illinois federal judge said in granting the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
-
October 22, 2026
NEW YORK — A panel of the First Department New York Supreme Court Appellate Division dismissed an appeal filed by insurers that sought review of a trial court’s refusal to sign an order to show cause in an environmental contamination coverage dispute because the refusal to sign the order is not appealable.
-
October 20, 2026
SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge on Oct. 19 granted a motion to compel appraisal filed by insureds in a water damage coverage dispute, rejecting a homeowners insurer’s argument that appraisal is not appropriate because the parties have not agreed on what needs to be repaired or replaced in the home.
-
October 20, 2026
SHERMAN, Texas — After a Texas federal judge dismissed the bulk of three related oil and gas companies’ claims against a group of insurers participating in the Lloyd’s of London insurance market over the alleged failure and refusal to honor obligations under environmental policies, the underwriters filed an answer to the two surviving causes of action and a series of counterclaims for declaratory judgment, arguing that coverage is unavailable or limited under various policy provisions.
-
October 20, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal magistrate judge dismissed with prejudice an insured’s claims against an insurer for breach of contract, bad faith and declaratory relief following the parties’ settlement of a dispute over insurance coverage for underlying suits related to exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) allegedly contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) that was manufactured and sold by the insured.
-
October 20, 2026
EL PASO, Texas — A commercial general liability insurer’s amended motion for summary judgment should not be considered because the insurer did not seek leave of a Texas federal court, as required by the court’s local rules, prior to filing the amended motion in a carbon monoxide poisoning coverage suit, the underlying plaintiff maintains in response to the insurer’s amended motion.
-
October 20, 2026
LANSING, Mich. — In response to a motion for partial summary judgment filed in Michigan federal court by insurers in a coverage dispute stemming from lead-contaminated water supplied by an insured city, the underlying plaintiffs say the city’s insurers have a duty to defend the city and pay for the $25 million consent settlement reached by the city and underlying plaintiffs as consequential damages because the insurers failed to show that no coverage is afforded for the underlying class actions filed against the city.
-
October 16, 2026
SHERMAN, Texas — A commercial general liability insurer filed a complaint in Texas federal court, seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify insureds for the release of a toxic chemical from an insured facility because its policy’s pollution exclusion applies as a bar to coverage.
-
October 13, 2026
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge denied a motion to dismiss or stay a lawsuit pending resolution of a parallel action in Georgia state court after determining that a stay or dismissal is not warranted because it is not clear that all of the issues in the California federal suit related to various insurers’ duty to defend an insured in underlying silica bodily injury suits will be resolved in the Georgia suit.
-
October 13, 2026
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Primary and umbrella insurers filed suit in a Virginia federal court seeking a declaration that they have no duty to defend or indemnify their insured, a stone product supplier, against underlying silica bodily injury suits because their policies’ exclusions for silica and pollution bar coverage.
-
October 06, 2026
By Scott M. Seaman and Daniel C. Shatz
-
October 08, 2026
LANSING, Mich. — A Michigan federal magistrate judge granted a motion for an order to show cause filed by insurers in a coverage dispute stemming from lead-contaminated water supplied by an insured city after determining that a former city employee who failed to show up at a deposition must appear before the court to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt of court for failure to appear at the deposition.
-
October 08, 2026
LOS ANGELES — Insureds sued their homeowners insurer for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of the California unfair competition law (UCL), alleging that the insurer, in concert with environmental consulting and testing companies, directed an investigation into their Palisades Wildfire claim “that repeatedly narrowed the scope of testing, ignored evidence of contamination in concealed and exterior areas, and proposed piecemeal remediation that could not restore the Property to its pre-loss condition.”
-
October 07, 2026
EL PASO, Texas — A commercial general liability insurer filed an amended motion for summary judgment, correcting its failure to attach the applicable policy to its original motion and reiterating its argument that its policy’s total pollution exclusion bars coverage for an underlying carbon monoxide poisoning suit.
-
October 07, 2026
LOS ANGELES — A California appeals panel affirmed a lower court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a homeowners insurer on claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and fraud in a lawsuit seeking coverage for property damage following a 2019 rainstorm, holding that the insurer has satisfied its burden of establishing noncoverage warranting summary judgment even if there is a triable question as to the efficient proximate cause of the insureds’ loss.