Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

Corporate transactions are on the rise. A recent report by Aon reveals that between 2024 and 2025, the average deal value for its North American clients increased by 73 percent. Deals exceeding $1 billion in value increased 26 percent. This growth points to a healthy transactional market and increased deal activity, creating meaningful opportunities for businesses and investors to pursue strategic acquisitions. 

In 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, the Sixth Circuit did something courts do not always do in coverage disputes: it refused to let an insurer avoid liability based on a technical policy condition that could never actually be satisfied.

The decision is a straightforward reminder of two core principles. First, policies must be interpreted from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent insured. Second, hyper-technical conditions cannot be used to deny coverage where compliance is never possible.

Whether a loss counts as one “occurrence” or many can determine whether meaningful coverage is available. In J.M. Smucker Company v. Ace American Insurance Company, the Sixth Circuit held that thousands of claims tied to alleged salmonella contamination in peanut butter arose from a single occurrence—not hundreds of separate occurrences grouped by production lot. For manufacturers and other policyholders facing recall or mass-claim exposure, the decision is a useful reminder that courts applying a cause-based analysis should look to the common source of the alleged harm, not the number of claimants.

A Delaware trial court recently addressed a relatively uncommon insurance coverage dispute—litigated claims under a buyer-side representations and warranties policy—arising from a global surface technology firm’s assertion that the chemical company it acquired breached three representations in the deal documents. The Delaware Superior Court decision, in Surteco North America, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., highlights some common friction points in RWI claims and provides guidance for policyholders navigating future coverage disputes that mature into litigation.

Happy 4^th and 250 years of freedom . . . to contract!

Many policyholders assume insurance policies are “standard” and must be accepted as-is. That assumption is often wrong—and dangerously limiting. Unlike many consumer insurance markets, the commercial insurance realm preserves a robust “freedom to contract,” allowing sophisticated policyholders to negotiate terms, exclusions, definitions, and limits before a policy is even issued. Particularly in recent years, high-profile disputes over cyber coverage, business interruption, and war/cyber exclusions have shown not just what happens when coverage is denied, but what could have been done up front to avoid those fights.

This post highlights the power policyholders still hold in the negotiation process and illustrates, with concrete examples from recent media-covered disputes, how that freedom can be strategically used.

A New York federal court has broken new ground and laid a foundation for insureds to pursue damages flowing from bad faith claim handling practices. In a significant decision for policyholders, the Southern District of New York has clarified that bad faith claims (and the consequential damages that accompany them) are not limited to first-party insurance disputes. In Renergy, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., No. 25-CV-5073, 2026 WL 1192415 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2026), the court rejected an insurer’s argument that New York law categorically bars bad faith claims stemming from third-party insurance.

Hunton’s insurance coverage practice was once again recognized among the nation’s top policyholder insurance practices, receiving a Band 2 national ranking in the 2026 United States Edition of The Legal 500 for Insurance: Advice to Policyholders. The Legal 500 recognizes firms solely based on merit through numerous factors including client feedback and peer input.

In a recent client alert, Hunton insurance attorneys Geoffrey B. Fehling and Alundai J. Benjamin discuss the Fourth Circuit’s broad interpretation of a “related claims” provision in a healthcare liability policy. The dispute arose from two lawsuits against a laboratory testing company alleging systemic deficiencies in testing practices that produced false positives, where the later-filed lawsuit repeated and expanded on allegations from an earlier suit. Interpreting policy language and Fourth Circuit law requiring only a logical or causal connection based on “any common fact,” the appellate court overturned the district court opinion and held that the lawsuits were related and deemed a single claim first made during the earlier policy period.

Hunton’s insurance coverage team recently secured an important appellate victory for clients St. John’s University and Hofstra University in a coverage dispute arising from United Educators Insurance Company’s (“UE”) categorical refusal to defend or indemnify the universities in student class action lawsuits filed after the universities transitioned to remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The decision is significant both for colleges and universities facing pandemic-related tuition refund suits, and for policyholders more broadly. It reaffirms a core principle of insurance law: a liability insurer’s defense duties require a defense even where some of the claims or relief sought in the underlying lawsuit may not be covered. Rather, where the allegations create a reasonable possibility of covered loss, the insurer must defend the entire lawsuit.

Policies sold through Lloyd’s of London present distinct jurisdictional challenges. Unlike policies sold by a single insurance company, Lloyd’s policies are sold through a marketplace in which risks are underwritten by syndicates composed of individual investors known as “Names.” A single syndicate may include dozens—or even more than a thousand—Names.