Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

A self-insured retention is a dollar amount specified in the insurance policy that an insured must pay toward a claim before insurance coverage begins to apply to pay for remaining covered amounts. While ordinarily straightforward, insurers may sometimes argue otherwise. In a recent summary judgment ruling in The Archdiocese of New York, et al. v. Century Indem. Company, et al., No. 652825/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 8, 2025), based on the plain language of the insurance policies, a New York state trial court rejected an insurer attempt to treat a self-insured retention as reducing the amount covered under the policies. 

Benchmark Litigation has recognized the following members of Hunton’s insurance coverage team as Litigation Stars: practice head Syed S. Ahmad, partner Walter J. Andrews, and special counsel Lorelie (Lorie) S. Masters. Benchmark’s Litigation Star recognizes individuals who possess a strong case record and are consistently recommended by clients and peers as reputable and effective litigators.

In addition, Benchmark named partner Geoffrey Fehling on its Future Stars list, which recognizes individuals who are consistently referenced by peers and clients as litigators who are building their reputations in the market.

Even Real Housewives need insurance. Real Housewives of Potomac star Wendy Osefo, and her husband Edward, were recently indicted on charges of insurance fraud, among other charges. The housewife’s predicament is a cautionary tale for those with commercial and personal lines of coverage about the investigative tools insurers may use to investigate a suspicious or large insurance claim. In insurance, as in life, honesty is the best “policy.”

A New Mexico Court of Appeals decision illustrates that when a policy term is undefined and ambiguous, the term must be interpreted liberally and in favor of coverage. In Kane v. Syndicate 2623-623 Lloyd’s of London, 2025 WL 1733046 (N.M. Ct. App. June 16, 2025), the court affirmed summary judgment for a policyholder and held that a cyber liability policy afforded coverage for the policyholder’s loss that resulted from a post-breach fraudulent funds transfer because the preposition “for” was broad enough to afford coverage for a third party claim resulting from a security breach.

When a cyber incident occurs and the insurer pays out the claim, they often face the frustrating reality that pursuing the actual criminals – the threat actors – for indemnification is virtually impossible. Thus, insurers are now turning to subrogation claims against the very cybersecurity vendors entrusted by policyholders to protect their systems. Indeed, insurers are increasingly examining whether outsourced cybersecurity providers may have breached their contractual obligations or failed to deliver adequate protection, leading to the loss. This shift means policyholders may find their cybersecurity vendors facing legal action from their own insurer, creating a new layer of risk in vendor relationships.