-
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.
-
July 21, 2026
HARRISBURG, Pa. — No coverage is owed for an underlying bodily injury suit arising out of toxic mold exposure in an insured apartment because a policy’s fungi and bacteria exclusion and pollution exclusion bar coverage for the suit filed against the insureds who operated an apartment complex where the underlying plaintiffs were allegedly exposed, an insurer says in a complaint filed in Pennsylvania federal court.
-
July 20, 2026
DALLAS — An insured’s common-law and statutory bad faith claims against a property insurer cannot proceed because the insurer’s denial of coverage for damage to the insured’s roof was not unreasonable, a Texas federal judge said in partially granting the insurer’s motion for summary judgment.
-
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.