HNRK Coverage Corner

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 ...

Last month, the Second Circuit held that commercial general liability insurers owed no duty to defend or indemnify a retailer of unfinished firearms in underlying “ghost gun” lawsuits because the lawsuits at issue did not allege injuries arising from an “accident” as defined by Texas law and were thus not “occurrences” under the policies.    

Background

In Granite State Insurance Company v. Primary Arms, LLC, the insurance dispute arose from lawsuits by the State of New York and the cities of Buffalo and Rochester against Primary Arms, LLC (“Primary Arms”), a ...

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 ...

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 August 12, 2025, a divided Delaware Supreme Court held, in a 3–2 split, that the payment of defense costs by the Named Insured’s corporate parent do not satisfy a CGL policy’s self-insured retention (“SIR”) unless the parent is specifically listed as a Named Insured or the policy language otherwise allows it.  In In re Aearo Technologies LLC Insurance Appeals, C.A. No. N23C-06-255 (Del. Aug. 12, 2025), the court found that the SIR was a condition to precedent to coverage and adopted a strict reading of the policy language that the insured argued elevated form over substance.