HNRK Coverage Corner

Last month, the Eighth Circuit held that a policyholder that failed to notify its insurers about an explosion at an oil well within the timeframe specified in an exception to the pollution exclusion could not invoke that exception even where the insurers did not object to the late notice when they denied the insurance claim. 

In XTO Energy, Inc. v. Commerce & Industry Insurance Co., the court reversed a $25 million judgment for the policyholder, holding that a North Dakota law that insurers waive a late notice defense if they do not make “prompt and specific objection” to the late ...

Today at the Coverage Corner, we look at a decision of the New York Appellate Division First Department on a D&O insurance coverage issue that is near and dear to my heart:  the treatment of “related claims,” in this case under a prior acts exclusion.  I have successfully litigated this issue in New York, written about it on this blog (see here, here, and here), and earlier this year moderated a panel at the ABA’s Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee meeting, entitled Déjà Sued:  Coverage Pitfalls and Possibilities for Related Claims Under Claims-Made Liability Policies.

In ...

This week at the Coverage Corner, we examine a Second Circuit decision that wades into hot-button topic:  liability coverage for environmental claims involving PFAS (colloquially known as “forever chemicals”).  In a summary ordered issued on May 4, 2026, in Town of Harrietstown v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., Case No. 22-253-cv, the Second Circuit affirmed a decision from the Northern District of New York, granting summary judgment to the insured on its claim for defense costs.  We wrote about the district court’s decision in an article in Chambers’ 2026 Insurance & ...

Earlier this year, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an important 3–2 decision on the application of a “bump-up” provision to losses arising from a merger transaction. (See our previous post about this type of policy provision, here.) In Illinois National Insurance Co. v. Harman International Industries, Inc., C.A. No. N22C-05-098 (Del. Jan. 27, 2026), the court affirmed an award of summary judgment for the policyholder, holding that three D&O insurers—AIG, Chubb, and Berkley—could not invoke a “bump-up” provision to deny coverage for a $28 million settlement of ...

This week on Coverage Corner, we revisit Adolph v. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, a coverage action in the United State District Court for the Western District of Washington, that we previously covered here. In a decision issued on April 15, 2026, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and clarified the consequences of an insurer’s denial of coverage based on an unreasonable interpretation of policy language.

Background: The Prior Summary Judgment Order

In its original summary judgment order, the Court held that the insurer, RSUI, had breached its ...