A commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond
In a coverage dispute between two insurers, the federal district court found the professional services exclusion under one of the insurer’s policies did not apply. The Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192870 (E.D. N. Y. Aug. 25, 2026).
GGP Staten Island Mall, LLC contracted with Aurora Contractors…
The court granted the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment confirming that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured. Arch Spec. Ins. Co. v. Herbal Garden Wellness, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195542 (D. Colo. July 15, 2026).
Herbal Garden was an additional insured under a CGL policy issued by Arch…
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that numerous lawsuits against the insured for distribution of peanut butter with salmonella contamination triggered one occurrence that meant one retained limit was applicable. J.M. Smucker Co. v. Ace Am ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19304 (6th Cir. July 1, 2026).
Smucker made food products…
The appellate court affirmed a party’s right to pursue both coverage as an additional insured while also seeking to enforce a contractual indemnity claim. Daniello v. J.T. Magen & Co., Inc., 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1994 (N.Y. App. Div. March 31, 2026).
The lower court granted defendant/third party defendant L&K Partners, Inc.’s motion…
The federal district court granted summary judgment requiring the insurer to defend the insured hotel in a suit involving sex trafficking of a minor. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Windham Motels & Resorts, Inc., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66641 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2026).
G.M., a minor, sued the hotel alleging that she…
Applying Texas law, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify the manufacturer of ghost guns and gun parts. Granite State Ins. Co. v. Primary Arms, LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32275 (2nd Circ. Dec. 10, 2025).
The insured, Primary Arms, sold and shipped…
The court determined that the subcontractor’s insurer owed a defense to the additional insured general contractor in a bodily injury suit. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227712 (S.D. W. V. Nov. 19, 2025).
A.L.L. Construction, Inc. was the general contractor for a construction project.
In a dispute between two insurers regarding which had a duty to defend in the underlying lawsuit, the federal district court denied one insurer's motion to join the underlying plaintiff as a necessary party. Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Burlington Ins. Group, Inc., 2025 U.S. Distl LEXIS 144927 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2025). …
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on its claim that a defense was not owed to an entity not named as the insured under the policy. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Order Denying Rip Van 898, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139269 (D. Nev. July 22, 2025).
…
The court agreed with Travelers that Lloyd's had a duty to defend the underlying personal injury case. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118445 (S.D. N. Y. June 23, 2025).
Jerome Avenue owned a multi-tenant property in the Bronx, New York. Jerome Avenue leased…
