Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

The recent Illinois federal court decision McDonald’s Corporation, et al., v. Homeland Insurance Company Of New York illustrates the perils that policyholders may face if they fail to understand the contours of key defined terms in their insurance policies. In McDonald’s, the court agreed that an insurer who sold a general liability policy did not have a duty to defend its insured against claims alleging fear and emotional distress because that harm did not meet the definition of bodily injury in the insurance policy.

A recent decision by the Eastern District of Virginia illustrates the tricky problem of relatedness in claims-made liability insurance policies. When a claim is made that relates to an earlier claim, the second claim is covered under the same insurance policy as the original claim, even if that policy has expired. However, determining when two claims are related is not always straightforward and involves a highly fact-specific analysis. As shown in Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Avertest, LLC, sometimes even identical allegations, describing the same allegedly negligent business practice, may not be enough to make claims related. Instead, under typical policy language, what matters is whether the claims arise from the same or related occurrences.

In April 2025, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a judgment against a Florida lodge and held that a jury should determine whether the failure of the lodge’s insurer to initiate settlement proceedings before a claim was filed constituted bad faith. In reversing the district court, the Eleventh Circuit reinforced the key duty imposed on insurers under Florida law to diligently and carefully investigate claims and act with an appropriate degree of care to protect their insureds or face consequences such as bad faith liability.