Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

The North Carolina business court recently handed a win to policyholders in a COVID-19 business interruption lawsuit arising from the pandemic-related closure of Tanger outlet centers across the country. Tanger Props. Ltd. P’ship v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2025 NCBC 66 (Oct. 27, 2025). Tanger’s insurers moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the insurance policies are governed by Georgia law, not North Carolina law, where the Supreme Court has held that all-risk policies must cover loss resulting from COVID-19 interruptions. Unpersuaded by the insurers, the court denied the motion finding that Tanger established a sufficiently close connection to North Carolina law.

On October 10, 2025, Governor Newsom signed SB 614, which lifted the ban on carbon dioxide (CO₂) pipelines in California and established the path to the new regulatory framework for CO₂ pipelines in the state.

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”). 

The recent California federal court decision Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Beachcomber Mgmt. Crystal Cove, LLC, et al. illustrates the perils that corporate policyholders may face in obtaining the full benefit of the bargain when they procure new D&O insurance after making a claim under a prior policy.  2025 WL 257599, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2025).  In Scottsdale, the court agreed that an insurer who sold a D&O policy could deny coverage for a lawsuit filed against two corporate executives during its policy period because that lawsuit involved some of the same allegations of wrongdoing as did a claim the policyholder previously submitted to a former D&O insurer.  The new policy contained a very broadly worded “prior notice exclusion” that barred coverage for all claims “in any way involving” any wrongful conduct, facts, circumstances, or situations as to which notice had been given to a prior D&O insurer.