A commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond
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 federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment finding there was no coverage for an employee’s injury due to the policy’s Workers’ Compensation exclusion. Houston Spec. Ins. Co. v. Villanueva, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 255989 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 10, 2025).
Heavy Metal Carports Inc. (HMC) secured a policy from Houston Specialty…
The court granted partial summary judgment on the duty to defend to two additional insureds who were named as defendants in the underlying personal injury suit. In re Third St. Equity, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234909 (E.D. N. Y. Dec. 2, 2025).
Third Street Equity LLD hired Developing NY State, LLC as…
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.
The court found that the insurer had a duty to defend and dismissed the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. I.C. Refrigeration Services Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221768 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025).
Flory Construction, Inc. sued the project owner, Highbridge, asserting claims for (1) foreclosure on mechanics…
The insureds were denied coverage when both negligent and intentional acts took place in the underlying case. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Diblin. 114 Cal. App. 5th 1245 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
Curtis Diblin held a homeowners policy with State Farm. While the policy was in effect, Dibiln attacked his housemate, Monee…
The federal district court determined that the insurer must defend the additional insured even though it was premature to determine whether there was also a duty to indemnify. Liberty Mutual. Fire Ins. Co. v. Acuity Mut. Inx. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121429 (D. Nev. June 26, 2025).
Royal…
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…
In a dispute over coverage obligations between two insurers, the court rejected one insurer's claim that the other insurer was equitably estopped from denying a defense. Associated Industries Ins. Co. v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114423 (S.D. N. Y. June 16, 2025).
Eduardo Molina was a construction…
The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment to determined which carrier was primary and which was excess for coverage of bodily injury. Travelers Indemn. Co. v. Hudson Excess Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110298 (S.D. N. Y. June 10, 2025).
21 West 86 LLC, the owner of a building…
