Behind the Scenes Insurance Drama: Unraveling the Coverage Battle Around “It Ends With Us”
Time 4 Minute Read
Categories: Other Insurance

While millions have been captivated by Wayfarer Studio’s production of “It Ends With Us,” a lesser-known but real-life insurance drama is unfolding off-screen. Last week, Harco National Insurance Company found itself in the spotlight when it filed a declaratory judgment action against its insureds, including, among others, Wayfarer Studios LLC, It Ends With Us Movie LLC and Justin Baldoni (jointly “Defendants”) asserting it has no obligation to defend the claims brought against Defendants by Blake Lively in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios, et al., U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:24-cv-10049-LJL (the “Underlying Action”).

Background

In December 2024, Blake Lively filed a lawsuit against Defendants alleging serious misconduct while she was worked as the lead actor for “It Ends With Us.” According to the lawsuit, Lively was subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment by the Defendants beginning in May 2023. Further, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants later retaliated against her for complaining about the mistreatment.

The Coverage Action

Harco issued two relevant management liability policies to Defendants: One policy effective from July 15, 2023, to July 15, 2024 (the “2023 Policy”), and a second policy effective from July 15, 2024, to July 15, 2025 (the “2024 Policy”).

On April 25, 2025, Defendants notified Harco National Insurance Company of the Underlying Action and requested defense and indemnity under the 2023 Policy and 2024 Policy. In response, Harco denied coverage and filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a court ruling that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants under either policy.

In its complaint, Harco outlines several reasons for denying coverage. First, it argues that Defendants failed to provide timely notice of the claim when it was first made under the 2023 Policy. Second, it argues that the prior knowledge exclusion bars coverage under both policies because prior to the inception of both policies, Defendants were aware of Lively’s allegations and nonetheless warranted on their application that they knew of no facts or circumstances that could give rise to a claim. Lastly, Harco argues that the 2024 Policy does not provide coverage because Lively’s initial demand in November 2023, constituted a “claim” that was first made before the 2024 Policy took effect.

Takeaways

While this coverage action is still in its early stages, and the Defendants will certainly present their own arguments supporting coverage under the policies, Harco’s reasons for denying coverage are extremely common defenses that insurers use to deny, limit or reserve rights on coverage. Remember, securing insurance is just the start—the real win is ensuring that the coverage is there when you need it. Therefore, policyholders should keep the following in mind:

  • Do Not Overlook the Application. While the application process may seem mundane, it is critical for policyholders to answer all questions truthfully and thoroughly. Inaccurate or incomplete responses can lead to coverage denials or even rescission of the policy, depending on jurisdiction.
  • Provide Prompt Notice. Delayed notice can jeopardize coverage and may give the insurer grounds to deny a claim depending on the length of the delay and whether the insurer was prejudiced by the late notice. In any event, policyholders are best served by avoiding an often preventable coverage dispute over late notice. When in doubt, notify your insurer of a claim. Further, analyze policies to determine if they contain a “notice of circumstances” provision, which allows notice when the policyholder reasonably suspects a claim may be imminent, and thus preserves coverage during the noticed policy period for later filed claims.
  • Understand Your Exclusions. Pay close attention to your policy exclusions including the prior knowledge exclusions, which can limit the availability of coverage. These exclusions can sometimes be negotiated at the policy procurement stage for more favorable wording.
  • Engage Assistance as Needed. Experienced coverage attorneys, brokers and risk management professionals can help policyholders in navigating the application process, improving and understanding key policy provisions at the time of purchase, providing timely notice of a claim and, if needed, defending against wrongful denials and securing entitled coverage.
  • Partner

    Andrea helps companies navigate disasters and swiftly recover insurance funds to restore operations with minimal impact to the bottom line. She leads the firm’s cyber insurance practice and serves as a firmwide hiring partner.

  • Associate

    Torrye advises policyholders in complex insurance coverage matters. As a member of the firm’s nationwide insurance coverage team, Torrye represents commercial policyholders in a wide range of matters, including property and ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

Colleges and universities have long sat at the crossroads of freedom of expression and societal change. As campus activism surges, they face growing pressure to protect their institutional missions while upholding students’ individual rights in an era of heightened scrutiny.

Time 1 Minute Read

If recent years have taught insurance practitioners anything, it is that the most consequential coverage disputes rarely turn on novelty alone. In 2025, courts continued to resolve high‑stakes insurance disputes by returning to first principles—examining when claims are related, how losses and occurrences are defined and aggregated, and how policy language allocates risk across time and conduct. D&O coverage and other core insurance law issues again occupied center stage, while decisions in property, cyber, and liability disputes reinforced a familiar theme: policy interpretation remains the decisive factor in determining whether coverage is available in an increasingly complex claims environment. As the decisions discussed below demonstrate, 2025 confirmed that even as risks evolve, coverage disputes remain grounded in careful, policy‑specific analysis.

Time 5 Minute Read

Directors and officers liability insurance is first and foremost protection against personal exposure of boards and management who are targeted in claims challenging their decisions in running the company. That’s why it is surprising how often dedicated “Side A” coverage—insurance coverage, subject to no self-insured retention, available exclusively for the benefit of directors and officers who are not indemnified by the company—is overlooked in placing and renewing D&O insurance programs. One recent Texas bankruptcy ruling, In re First Brands Group, LLC, No. 25-90399 (CML) (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2026), demonstrates just how powerful Side A protection can be. There, against strong objections from the creditors’ committee, the bankruptcy court granted motions by numerous former executives seeking relief from the automatic stay to recover D&O insurance proceeds, unlocking millions in Side A coverage to defend against private and governmental claims asserted in connection with the bankruptcy.

Time 5 Minute Read

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.”

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page