-
August 19, 2026
NEWARK, N.J. — A New Jersey federal magistrate judge on Aug. 18 stayed and bifurcated a bad faith claim from a breach of contract claim for the purposes of discovery and trial in a coverage dispute over environmental contamination cleanup costs after determining that adjudication of the two claims will require different witnesses and different documentary proof.
-
August 18, 2026
NEW YORK — Primary and excess insurers have no duty to indemnify an insured for underlying personal injury suits seeking damages for exposure to ethylene oxide (EtO) emitted from the insured’s manufacturing facility because the policies’ pollution exclusion clearly bars coverage, a New York federal judge said in granting the insurers’ motion to dismiss.
-
August 18, 2026
SALEM, Ore. — An appellate court incorrectly determined that statutory attorney fees should not be included in the allocation of coverage damages in a contribution coverage dispute between primary and excess insurers over environmental contamination costs incurred by the insureds, an insurer says in a petition asking the Oregon Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s ruling.
-
August 18, 2026
SEATTLE — In a reply in support of a motion for summary judgment, an insurer maintains that its denial of coverage for an insured’s newly-tendered claim stemming from environmental contamination was consistent and justified based on a state trial court’s 2016 dismissal of similar claims.
-
August 18, 2026
RICHMOND, Va. — The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied an insured’s petition for rehearing of its ruling affirming a lower court’s denial of the insured’s motion for relief from a final judgment against it in a coronavirus coverage dispute, leaving intact its ruling that the North Carolina Supreme Court’s pro-coverage decision in North State Deli v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. does not prompt reopening and revising the prior judgments.
-
August 17, 2026
CLEVELAND — Contending that its $31 million payment resolved liabilities covered by a reinsured policy, an insurer brought counterclaims for breach of contract, equitable subrogation and unjust enrichment in an Ohio federal court against a reinsurer seeking a declaration that it has no obligation under facultative reinsurance certificates to reimburse the payment, which arose from an environmental coverage dispute over remediation costs at a Kentucky aerospace manufacturing site.
-
August 12, 2026
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal bankruptcy judge in Virginia has denied an insurer’s motion to modify a 2024 mediation order to allow the insurer to use documents produced by Hopeman Brothers Inc. during mediation in connection with the prosecution of its claim in Hopeman’s Chapter 11 case, finding that the requested relief conflicts with a local bankruptcy rule and that the insurer “failed to provide a compelling legal or factual basis for this Court to impinge upon a confidential judicial mediation.”
-
August 11, 2026
MINNEAPOLIS — A trial court did not err in granting a property insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a water and mold damage coverage dispute because the policy clearly excludes mold damage and requires repairs to be completed within two years of the date of loss in order for replacement cost benefits to be paid, a Minnesota Court of Appeals panel said Aug. 10.
-
August 11, 2026
SPOKANE, Wash. — A trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurer must be reversed, a Washington appellate panel said, because the insured’s suit against the insurer seeks coverage for environmental contamination at four sites that were not named or incorporated in settlement agreements related to contamination at other insured sites.
-
August 10, 2026
PALM BEACH, Fla. — A Florida federal judge on Aug. 7 denied as moot an additional insured’s motion to dismiss following an agreement between the insurer, the additional insured and the underlying plaintiff to dismiss without prejudice the insurer’s claims stemming from a coverage dispute over damages caused by a sewage pipe rupture.
-
August 10, 2026
SEATTLE — In an Aug. 7 response to an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in an environmental contamination coverage suit, an insured urges a Washington federal court to deny the insurer’s motion because the court already answered the question of whether a state trial court’s 2016 dismissal of similar claims precludes the insured’s claims.
-
August 07, 2026
SCRANTON, Pa. — A bad faith claim alleged against a businessowners insurer must be dismissed without prejudice because the insureds failed to provide specific details as to how the insurer acted in bad faith in handling a claim for water damage at an insured commercial building, a Pennsylvania federal judge said.
-
August 06, 2026
NEW YORK — Stating that an insurance exchange “should not be permitted to escape the economic consequences of its conduct,” a group of intervening reinsurers asked a New York federal court to award approximately $2 million in attorney fees and costs arising from the exchange’s failed attempt to disqualify an attorney who previously represented the exchange from serving as the reinsurers’ party-appointed arbitrator in a reinsurance dispute, contending that the exchange violated a hold-harmless agreement in which it promised not to sue the arbitrator.
-
August 04, 2026
SEATTLE — An insurer filed a motion for summary judgment in Washington federal court, arguing that no coverage is owed for an underlying environmental contamination suit filed in 2023 against an insured because the underlying suit stems from the same property damage and coverage claims that were dismissed by a state trial court in 2016.
-
August 04, 2026
DALLAS — A Texas appeals court held that a lower court correctly granted a take-nothing judgment in favor of insurers in an insured’s breach of contract lawsuit seeking full coverage for its losses arising from a pipe rupture that caused a hydrogen chloride gas spill at its facility, holding that the insurers established the corrosion exclusion applied and the insured failed to raise a fact issue demonstrating that it suffered damages in excess of the policies’ deductible stemming from covered events that were segregated from the excluded damages.
-
July 30, 2026
CINCINNATI — No coverage is afforded for an underlying water contamination suit filed against an insured because coverage is barred by the pollution exclusions included in primary and excess insurance policies, the insurers maintain in a suit filed in Ohio federal court.
-
July 29, 2026
NEW YORK — Writing that “the only appropriate remedy is dismissal,” a New York federal judge dismissed with prejudice an insurance exchange’s suit seeking to disqualify a reinsurer-appointed arbitrator based on his prior representation, ruling that a hold-harmless agreement barred the insurance exchange from bringing the lawsuit against the appointed arbitrator and a group of reinsurers.
-
July 29, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal magistrate judge dismissed an insured’s counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith against an insurer and dismissed the insurer’s cross-claim for declaratory judgment against the insured after the parties agreed to settle their dispute over insurance coverage for underlying suits 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.
-
July 27, 2026
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A New Mexico federal magistrate judge ordered an insured to show cause as to why its complaint against a pollution liability insurer should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not clear whether complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties.
-
July 24, 2026
SCRANTON, Pa. — An insurer argued in a reply supporting its second motion for summary judgment that a federal court in Pennsylvania’s earlier ruling in a water damage coverage dispute did not address the policy’s suit requirement or the applicability of policy exclusions. The case was brought by a modular apartment unit manufacturer for water damage allegedly caused by its subcontractor’s work.
-
July 23, 2026
NEW YORK — A New York federal magistrate judge granted summary judgment in favor of a U.K.-based reinsurer after determining that the statute of limitations on an assignee’s reinsurance billing claims began in October 2001 when the reinsurer sent a letter denying the validity of the claims, rendering the assignee’s September 2023 demand for $403,748.42 time-barred.
-
July 21, 2026
SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge on July 20 partially granted an insured’s motion for summary judgment on an insurer’s application of a policy exclusion in a dispute over coverage for water, mold and vermin damage to the insured’s personal items; however, the judge partially denied the motion as it applied to the cause of the damage because the record is not clear as to what actually caused the damage.
-
July 21, 2026
LOS ANGELES — In support of its argument that an interlocutory appeal is not warranted in a silica exposure coverage dispute, an insured filed a notice of supplemental authority, asking a California federal judge to take notice of a recent decision in a similar silica exposure coverage suit in which a judge denied an insurer’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal.
-
July 21, 2026
NORFOLK, Va. — A Virginia federal judge found that while the incorrect abstention doctrine was initially applied to determine whether federal jurisdiction is proper, it is still appropriate to exercise jurisdiction over the insurer’s suit, which seeks a declaration as to whether it owes coverage for underlying silica exposure suits filed against the insured.
-
July 21, 2026
RICHMOND, Va. — The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected two separate insureds’ motions for relief from a lower federal court’s final judgments against them in their coronavirus coverage disputes, rejecting their arguments that the North Carolina Supreme Court’s pro-coverage decision in North State Deli v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. should prompt the lower court to reopen and revise its prior judgments.