Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

In a recent opinion addressing cross‑motions for summary judgment, a Pennsylvania state court set forth a clear holding that policyholders may recover post-judgment interest under excess liability insurance policies only when the policy language expressly says so—and only when the stated conditions are met. The decision underscores the importance for policyholders to thoroughly examine the defense and payment provisions outlined in their insurance policies.

As we ring in the New Year, one thing remains the same: understanding the definitions and conditions in your insurance policy is critical. In a recent decision, a Florida federal court in Ohio Security Insurance Co. v. E Kelly Enterprises Inc. et al., No. 3:22-cv-24754, held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a general contractor and no duty to indemnify a subcontractor for damages from defective work on a naval base, based on the policy’s definition of “suit,” “property damage,” and allocation requirements. The decision highlights the importance of numerous issues in the context of commercial general liability policies, including the nuances of policy definitions, obtaining insurer consent when necessary, and allocation between covered and uncovered claims.

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.

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”).