Articles Posted in Litigation

Published on:

by and

photo looking upward and to the sky of the Illinois Supreme Court buildingThe 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.

Continue Reading ›

Published on:

by , , , and

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.

Continue Reading ›

Published on:

by and

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.

Continue Reading ›

Published on:

by and

video-game-retro-1398289137-300x150In 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.

Continue Reading ›

Published on:

by and

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.

Continue Reading ›

Published on:

by and

acuity-1180197583-300x200The 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.

Continue Reading ›

Published on:

by

On November 15, 2023, join PFAS Insurance Recovery Taskforce members Tamara Bruno and Scott Greenspan for “PFAS Insurance Coverage: The Policyholder’s Roadmap to Recovery.”

During this PLI event, Tamara and Scott will explore the most significant court decisions on PFAS coverage issues, provide a guide to registrants on the major coverage issues raised by PFAS claims under legacy and current insurance policies, and offer strategies to policyholders for insurance recovery of PFAS claims.

To register, click here.

Published on:

by and

In recent years, corporate directors and executives have faced challenges from conservative groups opposed to corporate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, with some efforts taking the form of shareholder litigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning the use of affirmative action in university admissions provides new ammunition for these claims and is likely to embolden potential claimants.

Continue Reading ›

Published on:

by and

Bump-up-exclusion-533045396-300x200Long a feature of directors’ and officers’ (D&O) liability insurance policies, the so-called “Bump-Up” Exclusion has gotten significant attention over the last few years. Because of the recent escalation in securities litigation that follows a majority of mergers and acquisitions, the Bump-Up Exclusion is of critical importance to publicly traded policyholders. Bump-Up Exclusion provisions are often found in a D&O policy’s definition of “Loss” and purport to exclude the amount of a settlement or judgment that represents an increase in the price paid to acquire an entity, where such consideration was alleged to be inadequate. A recent decision out of the Delaware state courts affirms again that D&O insurers will be held to the specific terms of their Bump-Up Exclusions.

Continue Reading ›

Published on:

by and

GettyImages-1407815018-300x200Courts don’t look kindly upon insurance company shell games. In Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. v. Baker & Son Construction, the Washington Supreme Court slapped down an insurer’s attempt to manipulate the type of general liability “trigger” it wrote to sell coverage that was illusory.

Continue Reading ›