HNRK Coverage Corner

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.   

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.