-
June 02, 2026
PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon federal judge adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny an insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in an environmental contamination coverage suit based on the magistrate judge’s finding that questions of fact exist as to whether the policy’s aggregate indemnity limit is exhausted.
-
June 02, 2026
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — An insured, named in an underlying carbon monoxide poisoning suit, is not entitled to a defense or indemnity because coverage is excluded pursuant to a pollution exclusion in the policies at issue, the insurer maintains in a motion for summary judgment filed in California federal court.
-
June 01, 2026
GALVESTON, Texas — Claims for breach of contract, bad faith and violations of Texas law should not proceed against a homeowners insurer because they fail based on the insurer’s payment of an appraisal award, a Texas federal magistrate judge said May 29 in recommending that the insurer’s motion for summary judgment be granted.
-
June 01, 2026
SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge denied motions for summary judgment filed by an insured and a homeowners insurer after determining that questions of fact exist as to whether the insurer’s estimate of the insured’s water loss damages was unreasonably low.
-
May 29, 2026
CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a lower federal court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of an insurer in a jewelry store insured’s breach of contract and declaratory judgment lawsuit, holding that the plain, unambiguous language of a policy’s flood carveout to a water backup extension applies to and bars coverage for the insured’s basement flooding following a 2021 rainstorm in Dearborn, Mich.
-
May 26, 2026
NEW YORK — A trial court properly found that no coverage is owed to insureds for an underlying lead paint exposure suit filed by tenants who lived in an insured property because the policy’s known pollution exclusion bars coverage, the First Department New York County Supreme Court Appellate Division determined.
-
May 26, 2026
BATON ROUGE, La. — An insurer urges a Louisiana federal court to deny its insureds’ motion to dismiss, arguing that a determination on the insurer’s duty to indemnify the insureds in underlying mercury bodily injury suits stemming from the decommissioning of a chemical plant would not be premature because no coverage is afforded under the policies.
-
May 26, 2026
INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of an insured after determining that the excess insurer has no coverage obligation for environmental contamination remediation costs because, under a pro-rata allocation method, the yearly cost of the remediation does not exceed the attachment points of the excess policies.
-
May 22, 2026
DAYTON, Ohio — A federal judge in Ohio issued an order of dismissal in a case brought by a company that owns a building in Dayton, Ohio, against its insurer after being notified that the parties settled the case seeking coverage for damage caused by storms; the judge had earlier issued a decision and entry overruling the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there was a dispute about whether the storm was the sole cause of the damage or whether the improper application of the roof’s liquid-applied roof membrane (LARM) coating and deterioration of the coating at least contributed to the damage.
-
May 21, 2026
WILMINGTON, Del. — Insureds are not entitled to pre-tender defense costs incurred in defending an underlying consolidated class action suit stemming from pollution damage caused by an insured oil refinery in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) because defense costs incurred prior to tendering a claim to an insurer are not available under the applicable USVI law, pre-tender defense costs are not available to insureds, a Delaware state judge said in granting the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment.
-
May 20, 2026
PADUCAH, Ky. — A reinsurer and a ferrosilicon producer filed summary judgment motions in a Kentucky federal court in a pollution cleanup cost coverage dispute, with the reinsurer seeking dismissal of all claims against it on the basis that it is only an indemnity reinsurer with no contractual duties to the producer and the producer seeking rulings that its insurer and the reinsurer must cover more than $4.6 million in disputed claim costs, plus future regulatory compliance costs, under a pollution legal liability policy.
-
May 19, 2026
LOS ANGELES — An insured filed a motion to stay its silica coverage suit pending in California federal court until the underlying silica bodily injury suits are resolved, noting that a stay would prevent the insured from having to litigate on two fronts.
-
May 19, 2026
SEATTLE — An insurer says an insured’s suit seeking coverage for environmental contamination at a gas station formerly operated by the insured should be stayed until a trial court issues a ruling on a motion to confirm the intended scope of relief because the state trial court’s ruling can help guide the disposition of the insured’s federal court suit.
-
May 15, 2026
CLEVELAND — A reinsurer seeks a declaration in an Ohio federal court that it has no obligation under facultative reinsurance certificates to reimburse an insurer for a $31 million guaranty settlement paid in an environmental coverage dispute over remediation costs at a Kentucky aerospace manufacturing site.
-
May 15, 2026
SHREVEPORT, La. — Breach of contract and bad faith claims alleged against a homeowners insurer in a water damage coverage dispute will proceed because questions of fact exist as to whether the insured maintained the heat in the home at the required temperature in accordance with the policy’s reasonable care requirement, a Louisiana federal judge said.
-
May 14, 2026
JACKSON, Miss. — An earth movement exclusion clearly bars coverage for foundation damage caused by a burst water pipe and an additional coverage provision for loss of land stability does not apply to the insureds’ loss, a Mississippi federal judge said in granting an insurer’s motion to dismiss the insureds’ extracontractual claims.
-
May 13, 2026
NEW YORK — In a case brought by a developer’s insurer against a subcontractor’s insurer, a federal judge in New York granted summary judgment to the developer’s insurer, finding that the subcontractor’s insurer owed a duty to defend the developer as an additional insured in an underlying case alleging that the subcontractor’s work may have contributed to water damage in a mixed-use building.
-
May 12, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should grant a petition for panel or en banc rehearing in a dispute over coverage for environmental contamination remediation costs because the panel’s finding that an annual aggregate limit provision in the umbrella liability insurer’s policies is ambiguous conflicts with a prior decision issued by the Ninth Circuit, the insurer says in its petition.
-
May 11, 2026
LOS ANGELES — An interlocutory appeal is warranted in a silica exposure coverage suit because a California federal judge’s order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the insurers involves questions of law regarding the scope and application of silica exclusions in the insurers’ policies, the insurers say in a motion for certification of interlocutory appeal.
-
May 08, 2026
PITTSBURGH — No coverage is owed to an insured for an underlying environmental contamination suit filed against it because the underlying claims are barred by the pollution exclusion included in primary and excess policies, the insurers maintain in a complaint filed in Pennsylvania federal court.
-
May 08, 2026
CHICAGO — No coverage is owed under primary and umbrella policies for a state environmental agency’s notice of violation because the policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage, two insurers say in a complaint filed in Illinois federal court.
-
May 07, 2026
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — No coverage is owed to an insured for remediation costs associated with contamination discovered at an insured shopping center because the policy’s exclusion for site development and construction activities clearly bars coverage, a Florida federal judge said May 6 in granting the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
-
May 06, 2026
NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s ruling that insurers owe a duty to defend an insured municipality against an environmental contamination claim, agreeing with the lower court that the policies’ fire or emergency exceptions to the pollution exclusion may operate to provide coverage.
-
May 05, 2026
NEW YORK — A New York federal magistrate judge granted an insured’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint in an environmental contamination coverage dispute after determining that a bad faith claim in the proposed amended complaint is not duplicative of the insured’s breach of contract claim because the bad faith claim is based entirely on the insurer’s handling of the insured’s claim.
-
April 28, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s ruling in a dispute over coverage for environmental contamination remediation costs after determining that an annual aggregate limit provision in an umbrella liability insurer’s policies is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of coverage for the insured.