The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that an insurer who altered its initial determination of coverage was equitably estopped from doing so. Penn-Star Ins. Co. v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 27904 (2nd Cir. Oct. 24, 2025).

J.G.F. NY leased space from 89th Jamaica. S&H Fish Co. was a subtenant of J.G.F. An employee of J.G.F. sued 89th Jamacia and S&H when injured at the space.

Dongbu insured J.G.F. In the lease agreement with 89th Jamaica, J.G.F. had an indemnification obligation. The lawsuit settled in 2023 for $3,030,000 with Dongbu contributing $250,000.

In a 2020 letter. Dongbu agreed to defend and indemnify 89th Jamaica “to the fullest extent of its policy limits for this matter. . . without reservations.” In a 2022 letter, Dongbu changed course, stating its policy “did not provide coverage after the exhaustion of the S&H policy because there was no finding of contractual indemnification as against J.G.F. and therefore no obligation under the Contractual Liability portion of the Policy.” Nowhere in the 2020 letter did Dongbu use similar language.

The district court ruled that Dongbu was equitably estopped from disclaiming coverage and awarded Penn-Star $750,000, the amount remaining in the J.G.F.’s $1,000,000 policy with Donbu, as well as an additional $24,353 for defense costs and prejudgment interest.

The Second Circuit found that Penn-Star justifiably relied on the 2020 letter as an acceptance of 89th Jamaica’s tender of coverage.

Penn-Star also suffered prejudice. Penn-Star established that had it known Dongbu did not intend to provide coverage, it would have been more active in the underlying litigation. The district court did not err in awarding defense costs and prejudgment interest on those costs.