Ramaco got the coal moving again in weeks. Its insurers took years to pay. Under West Virginia’s Hayseeds rule, the cost of that wait can give rise to a separate and substantial recovery.
Policyholders and insurers alike should take note.
In a recent decision from the Southern District of New York, Judge Jed S. Rakoff rejected an insurer’s attempt to stretch a “Subsequent Acts” exclusion beyond its text and denied a motion to dismiss a policyholder’s coverage action. The decision in AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. v. Forge Underwriting Ltd. underscores a familiar but critical point in New York insurance law: exclusions are strictly construed, and insurers bear a heavy burden when they attempt to defeat coverage at the pleading stage.
Most insurance policies use standardized wording drafted by the insurance industry. Coverage disputes frequently center on these standardized wordings. Policyholders only sporadically face significant claims that escalate into disputes with their insurers and result in litigation. Insurers, on the other hand, litigate identical or similar claims on a regular basis.
“I continue to believe—perhaps more so with each interaction—that LLMs have something to contribute to the ordinary-meaning endeavor. They’re not perfect, and challenges remain, but it would be myopic to ignore them.” —Judge Kevin Newsom
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Co. will be cited often for its holdings on policy interpretation and insurance applications under Alabama law. Perhaps the most groundbreaking analysis, likely to have long-term ramifications for insurance coverage litigation, was Judge Kevin Newsom’s concurring opinion addressing the role of AI large language models (LLMs) in policy interpretation. For the first time in a federal appellate decision, a judge openly explored whether ChatGPT, Bard/Gemini and similar AI tools could help courts interpret insurance policy language. His concurrence provides a roadmap for how AI may reshape insurance disputes, and where policyholders must tread carefully.
Insurance coverage disputes often begin with a battle over the appropriate forum for litigation. This can impact matters from the judge and jury who hear the case to the body of state law that governs the coverage issues. The U.S. Supreme Court may have given policyholders (and their opponents) more options in fighting this battle.
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.
Policyholder Pulse