HNRK Coverage Corner

Last month an Oregon federal court held that the phrase “and/or” in a communicable disease exclusion was ambiguous and denied an insurer’s bid for summary judgment. For coverage counsel, the opinion in Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Bruce Packing Co., Inc. provides an interesting analysis of whether a listeria outbreak is both “infectious” and “contagious”—and for lawyers in nearly every practice area, it’s a reminder that precision in contract language is important. 

Background

Bruce Packing Co. operated meat processing facilities. In 2024, the U.S ...

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 ...

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” ...

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.