The assigned claim against a broker was dismissed as premature because the underlying action against the insurer was not final. Mermaid Marine Holdings, LLC v. Maverick Yacht Mgmt., LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167833 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2025).

Defendant Maverick Yacht Management,, LLC (MYM) was a yacht management business. Plaintiff Mermaid Marine Holdings

The Supreme Court of New York granted the insured’s motion to compel the production of underwriting materials related to identifying additional insureds. Church of St. Andrew v. Western World Ins. Co., 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 5, 2025).

    The Church of St. Andrew (“church”) retained GC Solutions to perform roofing

The Minnesota Court of Appeals found losses from government orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic were covered by an endorsement which also provided for several occurrences suffered by the insured. Life Time, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2025 Minn. App. LEXIS 269 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2025). 

    Life Time, Inc. operated health

    The insured’s attorney was sanctioned for pursuing claims that were factually and legally unfounded. Wright v ASI Lloyds, No. 3?22-cv-357, Order (S.D. Texas Aug. 5, 2025).

    ASI moved for sections against the insured’s counsel, Eric B. Dick of the Eric Dick Law Firm, PLLC, requiring payment of fees, costs and

    The insured’s claim for damage to the property’s electrical equipment and power loss after a wind and rain storm was not covered due to the policy’s anti-concurrent causation clause. Allah-Pak Properties, LLC v. Century Surety Co., No. 2:23-CV-00301, Order (S.D. Texas Aug. 8, 2025).

    During a storm, water seeped into

    The magistrate judge recommended that the insurer's motion for summary judgment regarding the insured's bad faith claims be granted. Thornton v. HJB State Farm Lloyds, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151342 (W.D. Texas Aug. 5, 2025).

    The insureds claimed their home was damaged in a wind and hail storm. A claim

    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).