Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

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.

On November 10, 2025, Chairman John Boozman (R-MT) and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee released a discussion draft of legislation regulating crypto markets in the United States. The draft is similar in several ways to the Clarity Act, which the House of Representatives passed in July 2025.

On September 29, 2025, staff in the SEC’s Division of Investment Management issued no-action relief for certain crypto asset custodians. Specifically, the relief will, under certain circumstances, allow SEC-registered investment advisers (Registered Advisers), registered investment companies and business development companies (collectively, Regulated Funds) to treat a state-chartered trust company as a “bank” (for custody purposes) with respect to crypto assets and related cash or cash equivalents, without fear of enforcement under the SEC’s custody rules.

The decision of when to sue insurance companies, especially excess insurers, can be difficult, especially in disputes involving multiple claims, long timelines, and conflicting coverage positions between insurers. A recent federal court in Delaware, General Cable Corp. v. Scottsdale Indemnity Co., No, 1:24-CV-00797-TMH, 2025 WL 2576384, (D. Del. Sept. 5, 2025) underscores the timing risks in pursuing recovery in and out of litigation. In a word of warning to Delaware policyholders, the court dismissed a lawsuit against a manufacturer’s directors and officers excess liability insurers because its claims were either not ripe for adjudication or untimely filed.