When wildfires, floods or other disasters strike, multiple policyholders can be affected in similar ways. But historically, each policyholder would take on their insurance company alone—a tough task, especially for individual policyholders and especially when any given policyholder’s claim is dwarfed by the relative legal and financial might of the insurer. The recent ruling in Pitkin v. State Farm, however, shows how class actions can level the playing field.
In today’s volatile global economy, companies are learning the hard way that political shocks—whether through trade sanctions, military conflict or abrupt regulatory change—can wreak havoc on supply chains. And worse, many are discovering that their existing insurance coverage may not offer relief.
Delaware has long been the leading jurisdiction in which companies incorporate. According to Delaware’s published statistics from 2023 :
Because of Delaware’s long-held title as the premiere state of incorporation, it has developed an advanced mosaic of corporate statutes and precedential law consisting of protections for both corporate officers and directors as well as shareholders. Some of the most well-known features of Delaware corporate law are:
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in (again) on a still unsettled issue in the realm of insurance law: whether arbitration provisions in insurance policies issued by foreign insurers are enforceable notwithstanding states’ anti-arbitration statutes? If they are, coverage disputes between policyholders and insurers are likely to be relegated to arbitral decision under insurer-favored arbitration clauses; if not, policyholders may pursue their rights in a more favorable forum. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. 3131 Veterans Blvd LLC, the Second Circuit abrogated its previous decision in Stephens v. American International Insurance and answered this question in the affirmative, finding such provisions enforceable under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (also known as the “New York Convention”).
The Illinois Supreme Court has teed up a significant insurance question: Does a standard pollution exclusion bar coverage when the alleged “pollution” was not considered to be pollution when the policy issued—where the substance was lawfully emitted under an environmental permit?
The court accepted a certified question from the Seventh Circuit on April 17, 2025, in Griffith Foods International Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.—a case that springs from the Sterigenics ethylene-oxide suits. The court’s agreement to consider the question signals the potential for a landmark ruling on the scope of pollution exclusions, with far-reaching implications for companies dealing with environmental and related toxic tort claims.
In today’s fast-paced and increasingly unpredictable global environment, large enterprises face mounting risks—natural catastrophes, climate-related disruptions, supply chain breakdowns and emerging digital threats. Traditional insurance has long been the foundation of risk management, offering indemnification based on losses incurred. But a new model is gaining traction: parametric insurance. Unlike traditional policies, parametric insurance offers rapid, transparent, predetermined payouts based on predefined triggers. For enterprises with complex, global exposures, it’s proving a smart, scalable complement—or alternative—to conventional coverage.
On April 24, 2025, the California Supreme Court in New England Country Foods, LLC. v. VanLaw Food Products, Inc., issued an opinion by Justice Lius holding that California Civil Code section 1668 “invalidates limitations on damages for willful injury to the person or property of another.”
Colleague William McMichael recently won the 2025 Franklin Jones Best CLE Article Award for “So You’ve Got a Verdict…What Now?! Post-Verdict Procedure and Practice Tips for Texas Insurance Lawyers.”
McMichael’s article offers a practical roadmap for Texas insurance lawyers navigating the complex post-verdict landscape.
We have previously written on the evolving risks associated with PFAS—also known as “forever chemicals”—and their implications for policyholders navigating environmental liabilities involving both PFAS and PFAS-related chemicals (i.e., fluorinated chemicals that do not fit the definition of PFAS). Our prior analyses explored coverage strategies and regulatory enforcement trends. With regulatory activity and litigation continuing to accelerate, we are circling back to provide an updated look at the regulatory and legal landscape surrounding PFAS, including recent federal developments, insurer responses and practical guidance for policyholders navigating this complex and high-stakes area. To meet these risks, policyholders with potential exposure are well advised to review their general liability coverages, including both historical occurrence-based policies, pollution legal liability policies and any new terms added to current renewals.
Since President Trump took office on January 20, 2025, the administration has implemented significant changes to U.S. trade policy, including most notably with respect to tariffs. Within weeks of taking office, the White House announced changes to tariffs on steel and aluminum which placed a tariff of 25% on all such imports. New tariffs were also separately imposed on imports from Canada, Mexico and China subject to certain exceptions. Then, on April 2, President Trump announced “reciprocal” tariffs on most imports from most countries, branding the day as “Liberation Day” and one of “American industry rebirth.” These tariffs, which include a 10% baseline rate and higher specific tariffs targeting China, Vietnam and the EU, among others, prompted heightened concerns about a trade war. Then, on April 9, President Trump announced that although the 10% baseline reciprocal tariff will remain effect, the higher reciprocal tariffs will be postponed for 90 days—except for China, for which the reciprocal tariff and duties are being increased to 105%, which are being applied in addition to prior 20% duties and the Section 301 duties.
