Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

Listeria is a bacterium that can infect humans and cause intestinal illness and other harm. So when might listeria not qualify as a “communicable disease” under an insurance policy? According to a federal court in Oregon, the answer may turn on an exclusion for “any infectious and/or contagious disease[.]” (emphasis added). In Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Bruce Packing Co., the policy’s use of the conjunctive and disjunctive “and/or” rendered the exclusion ambiguous and, thus, inapplicable to a lawsuit alleging bodily injury from listeria.

The decision is a useful reminder that coverage exclusions and limitations must be written clearly and precisely and that a failure to do so may render them inapplicable.

When does an act constitute a “professional service”? A recent Sixth Circuit decision applying Kentucky law held that the answer to that question lies in the service itself, and not the context or circumstances surrounding its use.

In Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Seven Counties Services, Inc., No. 25-5806 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2026), a behavioral care center sought coverage under a commercial general liability policy after it was sued following the death of a minor resident who choked while being restrained by workers. Although the care center argued that its employees’ use of the restraint was improper and inconsistent with their training, the court concluded that the restraint was an excluded “professional service” because it involved specialized training and the exercise of judgment, and was subject to state regulation.

The decision illustrates the potential breadth of professional services exclusions and highlights the need for policyholders to consider the scope of the services they provide, especially when those services carry a risk of injury, in building a liability insurance program.

Special counsel Lorelie (Lorie) Masters was recently appointed as the chair of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession. Established in 1987, the Commission was created to assess the status of women in the legal sector and remove barriers to their professional advancement. As chair, Lorie will lead a 12-member roster of commissioners, and a panel of special advisers, dedicated to ensuring equal participation and systemic equity for women lawyers across the justice system and pursuing various studies to identify issues uniquely facing women in the profession, including disparate treatment, training and recruitment, parenting, and other issues. Most recently, the Commission in late July 2026 issued a groundbreaking study about issues affecting the mental health and well-being of women lawyers.

The recent wave of "rogue AI" incidents should be a wake-up call for every business leader and risk manager paying attention.

Recent accounts document a sobering reality: AI systems from multiple leading AI developers have each escaped controlled testing environments and caused real-world harm—compromising outside infrastructure, exploiting third-party vulnerabilities, and even canceling another person's reservation to help a user jump a waitlist. These aren't hypotheticals from a sci-fi movie. They happened this summer.

“Loss or damage.” “Caused by or resulting from.” “Faulty, inadequate or defective.” “Direct physical loss of or damage to.”

In coverage litigation, phrases like these can launch a familiar argument: if an insurance policy uses two different words, each must mean something different. Otherwise, one of them is surplusage.

That argument can have force. But it does not always carry the day. As the Supreme Court cautioned in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., surplusage is an interpretive clue, not a trump card. The Court explained that where one interpretation would create redundancy and another would avoid it, that difference “can supply a clue as to the better interpretation,” but “only a clue,” because “[s]ometimes the better overall reading” “contains some redundancy.” 586 U.S. 334, 346 (2019).

When a cyberattack occurs, companies often focus on the immediate response—investigating the breach, restoring systems, notifying affected individuals, and managing business disruption. But those costs are often only the beginning. In the months and years that follow, organizations increasingly face class actions, regulatory proceedings, and other claims alleging that they failed to safeguard sensitive information, and the cost of defending those actions can ultimately exceed the cost of responding to the breach itself.

The Tenth Circuit recently addressed whether multiple injuries allegedly resulting from an institution’s failure to prevent sexual abuse constitute one “occurrence” or several. In Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, the court held that the relevant policy language found in many general liability policies was ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the policyholder.

The decision shows that determining the number of occurrences depends not merely on the number of claimants, injuries, or time between injuries, but on the policy language and the alleged cause of liability. That distinction may affect whether coverage applies when a policy includes a per-occurrence self-insured retention or deductible.

Hunton’s insurance coverage team is proud to celebrate the recognition of Andrea DeField on Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 40 & Under List, an annual ranking that highlights the nation’s leading litigators age 40 and under. Andrea was one of only six Hunton lawyers selected and was recognized in the South region. Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under List honors attorneys who have distinguished themselves through significant case work, client feedback, and peer review.

New Jersey has some of the strongest consumer-protection laws in the nation. The state’s courts, however, had created judicial carve-outs for professionals and semi-professionals, exempting them from liability under those laws. Those carve-outs expressly included insurance brokers, whom the courts classified as semi-professionals.

That changed in Lowe v. Audet.

The SEC’s effort to rescind its 2024 climate disclosure rules marks a significant change in federal ESG regulation, but it should not be mistaken for a retreat from climate-related disclosure risk.