Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

Courts scrutinize a complaint’s factual allegations to decide whether the allegations trigger a duty to defend. ^[1] If the facts unambiguously exclude coverage, there is no duty to defend. ^[2] But what if the factual allegations fall within a policy exclusion, but the allegations are untrue or questionable? What if the true facts would mean the exclusion doesn’t apply? In that case, many courts have found that the insurer should base its decision on the policyholder’s version of the “true facts.” ^[3] An insurer can’t rely on the complaint’s allegations to deny coverage when the facts that the insurer knows or can ascertain show that the claim is covered. ^[4]

The United States Supreme Court recently accepted review of In re Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 60 F.4th 73 (4th Cir. 2023), a Fourth Circuit decision concerning “whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a ‘party in interest’ that may object to a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.” This issue, while one of first impression for the SCOTUS, has been litigated several times in the appellate courts, leading to a circuit split over the interplay between Article III and 11 U.S.C. Section 1109(b). 

Most modern liability insurance policies have provisions addressing whether different claims are “related” (or “interrelated”) for assessing potential coverage. Because the answer of whether two claims are “related” depends heavily on the facts giving rise to the underlying claims, the policy language, and applicable law, questions about relatedness can lead to significant insurance coverage disputes.

Last week, the Delaware Insurance Commissioner announced a series of process and regulatory improvements to the state’s captive regime. Building upon last year's significant amendments to DGCL 145(g) expressly permitting captives to cover D&O liability, Bulletin No. 14 outlines several requirements for captives to write Side A D&O policies for Delaware corporations, including several process changes intended to improve approval timelines and speed to market.

Major sneaker brands have capitalized on new trends in technology and social media to hype sneaker culture. As sneakers become more popular, sneaker collections increase in value, thus increasing financial exposure for collectors and other entities in the sneaker industry. One might first think of theft, authentication, fire, floods, or market valuation as the general risks associated with sneaker collections. But many sneaker companies have made headlines over the past few years with numerous lawsuits against other sneaker companies and entities with issues ranging from traditional patent battles to exhaustive fights against counterfeiters. Often overlooked by collectors and sneaker companies alike, insurance can and does play a critical role in helping both collectors and companies faced with unexpected liability related to sneaker culture.

Timely notice is an important first step in a successful insurance recovery.  But insurance policies are not always straightforward in identifying how, when, and to whom notice must be provided.  Some states may also impose additional procedural hurdles, including requiring policyholders to contact their insurers before filing suit (the idea behind this requirement is that it may avoid litigation).  Failing to comply with pre-suit requirements can hurt the policyholder’s recovery, as illustrated in a recent decision from the Northern District of Texas. 

The Eleventh Circuit recently confirmed the rule that “other insurance” clauses should not be used to disadvantage policyholders. Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Georgia Sch. Bd. Ass’n - Risk Mgmt. Fund, No. 22-13779, 2023 WL 5977299, at *1 (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2023). In a dispute between an insurance company and a public risk management fund, both insurance policies included “other insurance” clauses stating that each insurer would only provide excess insurance coverage where the policyholder is covered by other insurance. The district court found that the clauses were irreconcilable because both insurance policies could not provide only excess insurance coverage—at least one policy would need to provide primary coverage. Because of the conflict, the Georgia federal district court applied Georgia’s irreconcilable-clauses rule and held that each policy must provide coverage to the policyholder on a pro rata basis. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of Georgia’s irreconcilable-clauses rule.

Boston-based insurance coverage partner Geoffrey Fehling has been appointed to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce’s Financial Services Leadership Council.

The Chamber’s Leadership Councils—focusing on topics like climate and energy, health care and life sciences, and higher education—draw together select groups of business leaders with an interest in specific policy areas to connect with one another, share ideas and perspectives, and help inform and develop the Chamber’s policy positions. The Financial Services Leadership Councill works to identify ...

In HDI Global Specialty SE v. PF Holdings LLC, the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a district court ruling that the insurers of two apartment management companies did not have to cover a $54 million arbitration award against the companies for their alleged mismanagement of government-subsidized apartments. The Eleventh Circuit held that management companies’ failure to cooperate breached general liability insurance policies issued by the insurers.

Sanctions are an extreme remedy; frequently sought, but seldom granted.  Such was the case in Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP’s action on behalf of hotel and casino, Treasure Island, LLC (“Treasure Island”), against Affiliated FM Insurance Company (“AFM”) in federal court in Nevada, where AFM “hid” documents which refute the insurer’s defense on the central disputed issue in Treasure Island’s case—and many more actions seeking insurance coverage for losses arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.  A copy of the sanctions order can be found here.