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.
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.
Considering the complex structure of commercial insurance programs—typically purchased in annual “towers” of insurance—risk managers and in-house counsel often do not pay sufficient attention to arbitration-related provisions, which the insurance industry is more frequently including in its policies. That’s like playing only one board in a game of three-dimensional chess. Discrepancies among such provisions can lead to obstacles policyholders later must surmount when coverage disputes arise. This article highlights critical issues to consider and offers recommendations to avoid these obstacles wherever possible.
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.
Yemeni-based Houthi forces have attacked more than two dozen vessels transiting the Red Sea since the October 7, 2023, start of the current Israel-Hamas conflict, leading to a surge in marine war insurance premiums. Houthi elements have attacked commercial shipping with the stated goal of destroying America and Israel, although non-American and non-Israeli vessels have been fired upon, too, since the U.S. and its allies have been carrying out strikes against the Houthi elements in response to their attacks. The resulting increased risks of sailing through the Red Sea have led some vessels to avoid the Red Sea and divert to the Cape of Good Hope, including those operated by Maersk.
Temperatures in Arizona this week reached over 110 degrees Fahrenheit. The water temperature in the Florida Keys was reported to reach sauna-like levels, threatening the life of habitat-sustaining coral. Atmospheric conditions are routinely blamed for violent storms and for wildfires that darken the skies.
As discussed in a previous post, cyber insurance demand and premiums have significantly increased in recent years. Fitch Ratings forecasts that cyber-related premiums could balloon to $22.5 billion by 2025. Those increases presumably reflect considerable claims activity, including in connection with liabilities arising from war and state-backed cyberattacks. To manage these exposures, insurers in the cyber market are increasingly relying on changes to their policies that attempt to carve out some or all of this liability from coverage. A recent example of this trend, which may significantly alter the cyber insurance landscape, is playing out right now in the London Market.
Loyal readers of this blog may recall our recent analysis of Norwegian Hull Club v. North Star Fishing Co., an insurance coverage dispute that appeared likely to turn on the meaning of a blank space in a very large builder’s risk policy. After bench trial, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle has filled that gap—giving the policyholders most, but not all, of the coverage that they sought. Under the judge’s decision, based upon industry custom and practice, that blank space provided the policyholder with nearly $20 million in extra coverage.
Insurance coverage disputes often turn on the meaning of the specific words used in a policy. Norwegian Hull Club v. North Star Fishing Co., currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, presents a twist—it turns on the meaning of a blank space.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle ruled that neither the policyholder nor the insurer was entitled to summary judgment regarding the interpretation of a critical policy provision, reasoning that an empty field rendered the clause ambiguous. But as the case now proceeds to trial, the most interesting part of the district court’s opinion might be its own blank space: contra proferentem, the argument it doesn’t address.
Policyholder Pulse