HNRK Coverage Corner

Last month, in CITGO Petroleum Corp. v. Ascot Underwriting Ltd., Case No. 24-0227-cv, the Second Circuit affirmed a victory for CITGO Petroleum Corporation (“CITGO”) when it held that oil seized in Venezuela was covered by a marine cargo reinsurance policy (the “Policy”) that provided coverage for losses caused by an “insurrection.”  On appeal, the Reinsurers argued Venezuela’s instability did not qualify as an insurrection, and they also urged a proximate-cause standard (rather than but-for) for the loss.

Background

In October 2012, Hugo Chávez won reelection ...

Today at the Coverage Corner, we examine a Fifth Circuit decision that ponders a fundamental question: What is a “suit”? A complaint filed in court or arbitration demand seeking money damages should qualify. But what about a pre-lawsuit ADR procedure? Like all questions of policy interpretation, the answer lies in the policy language, construed in accordance with the established rules of policy interpretation (including, for example, the canon that ambiguities are construed “in favor of the insured”).

At issue in BPX Prod. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s ...

This week at the Coverage Corner, we return with an update on a Delaware case about which we’ve written previously.  In Origis USA LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., Case No. N23C-07-102, the Delaware Superior Court held that because the primary policy had a “No Action” clause, the insureds’ suit against their D&O insurers for advancement of defense costs was premature as long as the underlying litigation was ongoing.  We wrote about that decision here.

In July, the Delaware Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration in light of what it said were arguments from the parties ...

A recent opinion out of the District of Oregon analyzed a “care, custody, or control” exclusion, among others, in assessing whether an insurer must defend a property manager in a suit arising from a fire at a vacation home maintained by the policyholder.  In finding for the insured, the Court’s decision highlights a broad duty to defend where the allegations in the underlying complaint could establish any potential for an injury covered by the policy.

In Colony Insurance Co. v. Vacasa LLC, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman held that Colony Insurance Company (“Colony” ...

On September 24, 2025, Judge Jennifer L. Hall from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision in Amtrust Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters Inc., C.A. No. 21-347-JLH, holding that securities and derivative litigation against AmTrust were not covered by an excess D&O policy because the lawsuits arose out of alleged accounting improprieties that were the subject of a “Notice of Circumstances” the company reported to its insurers during an earlier policy period.

As we have previously discussed on this blog, D&O policies are ...