Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

As we ring in the New Year, one thing remains the same: understanding the definitions and conditions in your insurance policy is critical. In a recent decision, a Florida federal court in Ohio Security Insurance Co. v. E Kelly Enterprises Inc. et al., No. 3:22-cv-24754, held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a general contractor and no duty to indemnify a subcontractor for damages from defective work on a naval base, based on the policy’s definition of “suit,” “property damage,” and allocation requirements. The decision highlights the importance of numerous issues in the context of commercial general liability policies, including the nuances of policy definitions, obtaining insurer consent when necessary, and allocation between covered and uncovered claims.

While the holiday season brings joy to many, it can be a stressful time for businesses. Cyberattacks often spike during weekends and holidays when businesses are less vigilant and slower to detect unusual activity. This reduced oversight creates an opportunity for attackers to exploit weaknesses and cause significant disruption. A recent article in Tech Times noted that ransomware groups launch over 50% of their attacks during weekends and take advantage of December’s increased operational shortages.

In a recent opinion, the 8th Circuit rejected an insurer’s attempt to expand insurer victories in a COVID-19 context to other more traditional claims of property damage. Reaffirming long standing principles, the court held soot and water damage associated with a fire constituted “direct physical loss or damage” under a commercial property insurance policy.

North Carolina has once again favored policyholders seeking insurance coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. A recent decision from the Middle District of North Carolina in Durham Wood Fired Pizza Co. LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., reinforces the North State Deli decision and suggests that a failure to provide coverage for COVID-19 business interruption claims may constitute bad faith.

From insurance agents and wholesalers to risk consultants and policyholders, there are many parties involved in commercial insurance transactions. While each has an important part to play, the policyholder-agent relationship is particularly important to ensure both sides understand their respective roles and obligations when an agent assists in obtaining coverage.

The Northern District of California recently rejected an insurer’s attempt at avoiding its duty to defend the insured based on erroneous application of a prior knowledge exclusion. The case highlights the breadth of an insurer’s duty to defend and reiterates that to avoid this duty, “it is the insurer’s burden to demonstrate there is no possible theory that would bring a single issue within coverage.”

The North Carolina business court recently handed a win to policyholders in a COVID-19 business interruption lawsuit arising from the pandemic-related closure of Tanger outlet centers across the country. Tanger Props. Ltd. P’ship v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2025 NCBC 66 (Oct. 27, 2025). Tanger’s insurers moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the insurance policies are governed by Georgia law, not North Carolina law, where the Supreme Court has held that all-risk policies must cover loss resulting from COVID-19 interruptions. Unpersuaded by the insurers, the court denied the motion finding that Tanger established a sufficiently close connection to North Carolina law.

On November 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by insurers seeking to challenge denial of their partial summary judgment motion on the issue of whether Covid-19 may cause “direct physical loss, damage or destruction” of property under an all-risk insurance policy that includes affirmative coverage for loss caused by infectious disease.

Third-party funding of high-stakes litigation can often make the difference between litigating the case or walking away.  The financial arrangement often makes good sense, with investors helping to facilitate the pursuit of bona fide claims that might otherwise be forgone in exchange for a piece of the recovery.  Insurance coverage disputes fit this model well, since those claims typically involve an insured who has already suffered some financial or other hardship and an insurance company with deep resources that refuses to pay the claim.  It should come as little surprise, therefore, that the Insurance Services Office (ISO), an advisory and rating organization for the property/casualty insurance industry, recently approved a new endorsement that requires disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements. The approval comes as courts and state legislatures step up demands for transparency in funding to curtail influence that funders may have over litigation strategy.

Captive insurers are formed with careful attention to domicile to select for favorable tax, regulatory, and operational climate. But as a recent decision reminds us, jurisdictional exposure doesn’t end with the state or country of incorporation. Captive insurers, like any other entity, can find themselves subject to litigation in jurisdictions where their conduct has an effect. Understanding this reach is essential to managing risk from an insurance and corporate governance perspective.