Newsletter RSS

Mealey's Insurance

  • February 05, 2026

    Cross-Appeals Consolidated In Case Involving Mine Subsidence Preclusion Claims

    CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals consolidated cross-appeals filed by a railroad company and a reinsurer that both arise from the same district court summary judgment ruling on the preclusive effect of prior judgments on mine subsidence claims.

  • February 03, 2026

    Insured’s Contamination Coverage Suit Barred By Res Judicata, Judge Says

    SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge dismissed an insured’s complaint seeking coverage under excess policies for environmental contamination at a gas station formerly operated by the insured because the insured’s claims against the insurer are barred by the doctrine of res judicata as the claims are “sufficiently identical” to the claims in a prior suit filed by the insured.

  • February 03, 2026

    Insurer Says Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Suit

    EL PASO, Texas — A commercial general liability insurer filed suit in Texas federal court, seeking a declaration that it does not have any duty to defend or indemnify its insureds in an underlying suit stemming from carbon monoxide poisoning at an insured motel because the policy’s pollution exclusion bars coverage.

  • February 03, 2026

    Policy Authenticity Issue Must Be Resolved In Carbon Monoxide Suit, Judge Says

    ALLENTOWN, Pa. — A Pennsylvania federal judge denied an insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a coverage dispute stemming from an underlying carbon monoxide poisoning death suit filed against the insureds after determining that it is necessary to first determine if a copy of the insurance policy attached to the insurer’s complaint is authentic.

  • January 30, 2026

    Assignee Opposes Bid To Dismiss Decades-Old Asbestos Reinsurance Claims

    NEW YORK — The assignee of the liquidator of an insolvent insurer urged a New York federal court to deny a summary judgment motion filed by a U.K.-based reinsurer, arguing that asbestos-related reinsurance claims are not time-barred and that the reinsurer’s post-liquidation conduct, written acknowledgments and the destruction of records preclude dismissal of the reinsurance contract dispute.

  • January 29, 2026

    6th Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Retailer’s Coverage Suit Prompted By COVID-19

    CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a lower federal court’s grant of an insurer’s motion to dismiss a women’s fashion retailer’s breach of contract and declaratory judgment lawsuit seeking business interruption coverage for its losses arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the lower court did not err when it refused to evaluate the policy at issue under the law of each of the 22 states where the insured claimed losses.

  • January 29, 2026

    Imerys, Cyprus Mines Debtors Defend Settlement With J&J In 3rd Circuit

    PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reject “yet another chapter in the meritless efforts of” insurers of asbestos talc debtors Imerys Talc America Inc. and Cyprus Mines Corp. to overturn approval of a $280 million settlement with talc seller Johnson & Johnson for a dispute over indemnification rights for defense of asbestos personal injury claims and “finally put an end to this misadventure,” the debtors say in their appellee brief.

  • January 26, 2026

    Judge: Property’s Expert On What Caused Collapse Can Testify In Insurance Dispute

    PHILADELPHIA — An insurance company may disagree with the conclusions reached by an expert retained by an insured in a breach of contract case, “but that does not mean those conclusions are unreliable,” a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Jan. 23.

  • January 26, 2026

    Judge Grants Initial OK To $25M Lead Deal Allowing Lawsuit Against City’s Insurer

    GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — A federal judge in Michigan has granted preliminary approval to a proposed $25 million settlement between Benton Harbor, Mich., and residents who are seeking damages for injuries related to exposure to lead-contaminated drinking water. The judge said the settlement meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).

  • January 26, 2026

    Pollution Exclusion Can Apply Even If Insured Has Permit For Emissions, Court Says

    CHICAGO — A permit or regulation that authorizes emissions has no relevance as to whether a pollution exclusion should be applied as a bar to coverage for bodily injury claims related to chemical discharges from an insured facility, the Illinois Supreme Court said Jan. 23 in answering a certified question from the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

  • January 23, 2026

    Additional Insured Owed Coverage For Suits Over Gas Explosion, 7th Circuit Affirms

    CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 22 affirmed a lower federal court’s summary judgment ruling in a dispute over coverage for an additional insured for underlying lawsuits arising out of a gas explosion, holding that the primary insured’s “acts or omissions” caused the gas explosion in whole or in part and the plaintiff is an “additional insured” for the purposes of the umbrella insurance policy.

  • January 23, 2026

    Coverage Denial For Mold Suits Was Bad Faith, Insureds Allege In Complaint

    PHILADELPHIA — Pollution liability and commercial general liability insurers of the owner and operator of military housing projects throughout the country acted in bad faith by denying coverage for underlying suits filed against the insureds by families who were injured by mold exposure in insured military housing units, the insureds say in a complaint filed in Pennsylvania federal court.

  • January 21, 2026

    GE, Others Say PCB Injury Indemnification Lawsuit Belongs In Federal Court

    ST. LOUIS — General Electric Co., along with other defendants, on Jan. 20 filed a supplemental memorandum in Missouri federal court arguing that Monsanto Co.’s motion to remand to Missouri state court the lawsuit it brought seeking indemnification for litigation related to alleged injuries from exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) should be denied because federal officer removal jurisdiction applies.

  • January 20, 2026

    Insurers Say Bankruptcy Judge Lacked Power To Enjoin Their Claims In Avon Plan

    WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware federal bankruptcy judge’s ruling confirming the Chapter 11 plan of liquidation for asbestos talc debtor AIO US Inc. should be overturned because the order exceeded the court’s authority, nondebtor insurers say in the opening brief in their appeal of the confirmation decision to a federal district court.

  • January 20, 2026

    Request For Exemplary Damages In Water Damage Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice

    DENVER — A Colorado federal judge dismissed without prejudice an insured’s request for exemplary damages in a water damage coverage dispute, agreeing with a magistrate judge’s finding that the insured failed to show that a triable issue of fact exists that would entitle her to exemplary damages.

  • January 20, 2026

    6th Circuit Affirms Ruling In Insurer’s Favor In Suit Arising From Building Collapse

    CINCINNATI —The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 16 affirmed a lower federal court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurer in an insured’s lawsuit alleging that the insurer’s misrepresentations that it had full coverage makes the insurer liable for $1.3 million in code-compliance costs that exceeded the policy limit, concluding that the insured failed to demonstrate that the insurer “owed a separate-and-distinct duty to advise” or that the insured “reasonably relied on” the insurer’s alleged misrepresentations.

  • January 20, 2026

    Insured Says Property Insurer Acted In Bad Faith By Relying On Pollution Exclusion

    DENVER — A property insurer breached its contract and acted in bad faith by relying on its policy’s pollution exclusion to deny a portion of an insured’s claim for damages caused by the release of asbestos during a fire in a nearby condominium unit, an insured maintains in a lawsuit filed in Colorado federal court.

  • January 15, 2026

    No Standing For Insurers To Challenge FCR In Hopeman Chapter 11 Case

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Insurers of Chapter 11 debtor Hopeman Brothers Inc. do not have bankruptcy appellate standing to challenge a Virginia federal bankruptcy court’s appointment of a legal representative for future asbestos claimants in the debtor’s case, a federal judge in the state said in granting Hopeman’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

  • January 14, 2026

    Reinsurers, Insurers Ask To Seal Summary Judgment Briefs In Indemnification Case

    TRENTON, N.J. —  The parties in a dispute between insurers and reinsurers over indemnification for asbestos bodily injury claims moved to seal confidential information as part of their cross-motions for summary judgment in a New Jersey federal court, stating that the filings contain nonpublic, competitively sensitive business information and that disclosure would cause competitive harm.

  • January 13, 2026

    Lead-Contaminated Water Coverage Suit Will Remain In Federal Court, Judge Says

    LANSING, Mich. — An insured city’s lawsuit seeking coverage for underlying bodily injury suits stemming from lead-contaminated water supplied by the city will remain in federal court, a Michigan federal judge said after determining that complete diversity of citizenship exists because the underlying plaintiffs, named as defendants by the insured city, must be realigned as plaintiffs based on the fact that their interests are aligned with the insured.

  • January 13, 2026

    Unfair Business Practices Counterclaim Will Not Proceed In Remediation Cost Dispute

    LOS ANGELES — An environmental remediation contractor’s unfair business practices counterclaim alleged against an insurer seeking to recover costs paid on behalf of its insured for environmental remediation work cannot proceed because the contractor failed to show that it suffered a monetary or property loss and failed to request any remedy, a California federal judge said in partially granting the insurer’s motion to dismiss the contractor’s counterclaims.

  • January 13, 2026

    Insurer Cannot Recoup More Than $721K In Attorney Fees, Costs, Judge Says

    SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California federal judge partially denied an insurer’s motion to recoup more than $721,000 in attorney fees, costs and interest deposited with the court in a coverage dispute over environmental contamination costs owed to an insured after determining that the insurer failed to show that the fees and costs billed by the insureds are unreasonable.

  • January 13, 2026

    Louisiana Panel Reverses Ruling In Suit Seeking Coverage For Total Loss To Condo

    GRETNA, La. — A Louisiana appeals panel reversed a lower court’s denial of an insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment in its insureds’ lawsuit seeking coverage for the total loss of their condominium unit, holding that the condominium was not rendered a total loss as a result of the direct physical damage caused by Hurricane Ida and the policy limit for a subsequent water event is $10,000 pursuant to the “Limited Water Damage Coverage” endorsement.

  • January 12, 2026

    High Court Denies Review Of Jurisdiction Ruling In PFAS Exposure Suit

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 12 denied review of an insured’s petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ finding that a district court erred in remanding a declaratory judgment claim and retaining jurisdiction over breach of contract and bad faith claims in a dispute over coverage for underlying per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure suits.

  • January 09, 2026

    Judge: Bifurcation, Stay Of Discovery Unwarranted In Windstorm Coverage Suit

    CHARLESTON, W. Va. — A federal judge in West Virginia denied an insurer’s motion to bifurcate an insured’s bad faith claim from the breach of contract claim in a windstorm coverage dispute, holding that the factors in Light v. Allstate Ins. Co. do not support bifurcation and that a stay of discovery of the bad faith claims is unwarranted.