HNRK Coverage Corner

This week at the Coverage Corner, we discuss Flextronics Int’l, Ltd. v. Allianz, 25-CV-1511(PAE)—a recent decision out of the Southern District of New York that examines an often disputed, but less-frequently litigated, issue in the realm of D&O coverage:  the allocation of a settlement payment between covered and non-covered loss.  Settlements often resolve a mix of claims against the insureds, some of which (such as securities fraud) may be subject to coverage and others of which (such as breach of contract claims) may not be.  Alternatively, the same settlement might be made on ...

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 ...

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 ...

HNRK insurance recovery partner Brad Nash spoke to Law360 to discuss the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Chisholm’s-Village Plaza LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. Reversing the district court, the decision held that an insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusions precluded defense coverage in an environmental contamination case. Brad explained, “the district court had it right that the fundamental principle that is the starting point for all of this is that you have to construe exclusions narrowly,” adding “what happens over time, and it certainly ...

In a guest article for the ABA Journal, partner Brad Nash and associate Milan Sova examine the complex and evolving law surrounding occurrence analysis in CGL claims for wildfire-related liabilities. The article outlines the three primary legal standards for determine the number of occurrences—the “cause,” “effects,” and “unfortunate event” tests—and analyzes their application to insurance coverage for wildfire liability claims. Read the full article here.