Companies in certain industries have years and even decades of experience in defending and resolving “long-tail” liabilities for suits, claims and other proceedings—such as for asbestos-related disease or environmental-related third-party property damage—that involve bodily injuries or property damage spanning multiple years arising out of their historical operations.
It’s said that an ant can carry fifty times its own weight. That’s nothing.
A recent decision out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provides a compelling reminder to policyholders and their counsel: Even the smallest word in an insurance policy—and even the placement of a punctuation mark—can carry tremendous weight. In fact, it can alter the meaning of an entire insurance policy. In Paloma Resources, L.L.C. v. Axis Insurance Co., the court vacated summary judgment in favor of the insurer based on the placement of a single word—“the”—in an exclusion clause.
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.
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.
Contra proferentem is a foundational legal principle with particular importance in insurance law. It mandates that any ambiguities in an insurance policy are construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured. The doctrine recognizes that insurance policies generally are contracts of adhesion, in which the insurer wields the “power of the pen,” and the insured is invited to accept the terms of the pre-written agreement with little to no alteration. Contra proferentem mitigates the inherent inequality of an arrangement where insurers generally have sole drafting authority and insureds, often with limited bargaining power, must accept the insurers’ terms as written. By resolving ambiguities in those terms against the insurer, courts are able to counterbalance some of this inequity and find coverage for policyholders.
In the last few years, the video game industry has been hit with lawsuits accusing certain games of fostering addictive behaviors, especially among younger players. These lawsuits often cite features like loot boxes, microtransactions, and reward systems, which are designed to enhance player engagement, as in-game mechanisms that push players toward compulsive play and psychological harm. Plaintiffs claim that game developers either knew or should have known about these potential risks and failed to mitigate them.
A recent decision by a California appellate court in Practice Fusion, Inc. v. Freedom Specialty Insurance Company, denying the policyholder more than $118 million in Directors & Officers liability coverage based on an expansive professional services exclusion, is a sobering reminder that this nettlesome exclusion—when over-broadly applied, as was the case here—may render your D&O coverage worthless. The mere fact that Practice Fusion’s insurers asserted this exclusion in the circumstances of this claim should remind brokers and risk managers of the importance of eliminating, or at least narrowing, professional services exclusions where there is any potential argument that the insured is engaged in providing any form of “professional services.” Although it is of course appropriate to fill any gaps created by the exclusion with commensurate Errors & Omissions coverage, E&O policies do not provide the same scope of coverage, or even limits, that are available under D&O policies.
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down a big win for policyholders just in time for the holidays. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, the court joined the mainstream of jurisdictions and reversed years-old precedent that severely limited policyholders’ ability to tap their liability coverage for construction defect and faulty workmanship claims.
Policyholder Pulse