Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

In a recent decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a commercial property insurer in a dispute involving the timing of notice for a hail damage claim. In Gann v. Depositors Insurance Co., No. 25-11291 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2026), the policyholder reported a claim after discovering interior water damage in 2022, but its consultant later attributed all of the claimed roof damage to a hailstorm that occurred in 2018. The court concluded that the delay in identifying and reporting the 2018 loss was unreasonable and prejudiced the insurer’s ability to investigate the circumstances of the loss in a timely manner. The decision is an important reminder for policyholders of the need for timely notice under property insurance policies. Such issues can arise, as they did in Gann, even where damage is not immediately apparent, its cause is not initially known, or the cause of loss may implicate a different policy period than the one under which the claim was first made.

As the first in a series of webinars that Hunton’s higher education and insurance teams will present this fall, this program will examine D&O, educators legal liability, and related management liability insurance coverages designed to protect colleges, universities, institutions, and the trustees, officers, and administrators who run them.

As artificial intelligence rapidly transforms HR processes, hiring algorithms, and workplace management, businesses and corporate executives face unprecedented legal exposure. Join Michael Levine and Katherine Deegan for an insightful, cross-collaborative discussion on AI risk from both labor and employment and insurance coverage perspectives.

Related-claims disputes are a recurring feature of insurance coverage litigation, and the consequences can be substantial. A determination that two matters are related can shift a claim into or out of the policy period, altering coverage entirely. Although those disputes often involve fact-specific questions, the coverage outcome also depends on the applicable policy language. Urena v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2026 WL 2322160 (1st Cir. Aug. 11, 2026) underscores this point and offers significant guidance for policyholders navigating related-claims issues.

Congratulations to Hunton insurance coverage associate Jae Lynn (JL) Huckaba for being selected to the Miami-Dade Bar’s 2026 Circle of Excellence for Insurance Law.

They say lightning never strikes the same place twice, but for two policyholders who were burglarized in back-to-back years, it did, and a simple paperwork mix-up may have cost them their insurance coverage.  Their complaint alleges that Lemonade, their insurer, unfairly denied claims from a 2025 burglary because receipts that had been submitted with a 2024 burglary claim were inadvertently submitted again.  

The complaint raises interesting questions about how insurers detect fraud and the appropriate approach when discrepancies are identified.  What responsibility do insurers have to further investigate and allow the policyholder to explain?  These questions will become increasingly important the more that parties rely on AI in connection with insurance claims, increasing the likelihood that potential errors blossom into coverage disputes.

The complaint can be found here.

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.