Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

A New York federal court has broken new ground and laid a foundation for insureds to pursue damages flowing from bad faith claim handling practices. In a significant decision for policyholders, the Southern District of New York has clarified that bad faith claims (and the consequential damages that accompany them) are not limited to first-party insurance disputes. In Renergy, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., No. 25-CV-5073, 2026 WL 1192415 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2026), the court rejected an insurer’s argument that New York law categorically bars bad faith claims stemming from third-party insurance.

Hunton’s insurance coverage practice was once again recognized among the nation’s top policyholder insurance practices, receiving a Band 2 national ranking in the 2026 United States Edition of The Legal 500 for Insurance: Advice to Policyholders. The Legal 500 recognizes firms solely based on merit through numerous factors including client feedback and peer input.

In a recent client alert, Hunton insurance attorneys Geoffrey B. Fehling and Alundai J. Benjamin discuss the Fourth Circuit’s broad interpretation of a “related claims” provision in a healthcare liability policy. The dispute arose from two lawsuits against a laboratory testing company alleging systemic deficiencies in testing practices that produced false positives, where the later-filed lawsuit repeated and expanded on allegations from an earlier suit. Interpreting policy language and Fourth Circuit law requiring only a logical or causal connection based on “any common fact,” the appellate court overturned the district court opinion and held that the lawsuits were related and deemed a single claim first made during the earlier policy period.

Hunton’s insurance coverage team recently secured an important appellate victory for clients St. John’s University and Hofstra University in a coverage dispute arising from United Educators Insurance Company’s (“UE”) categorical refusal to defend or indemnify the universities in student class action lawsuits filed after the universities transitioned to remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The decision is significant both for colleges and universities facing pandemic-related tuition refund suits, and for policyholders more broadly. It reaffirms a core principle of insurance law: a liability insurer’s defense duties require a defense even where some of the claims or relief sought in the underlying lawsuit may not be covered. Rather, where the allegations create a reasonable possibility of covered loss, the insurer must defend the entire lawsuit.

Policies sold through Lloyd’s of London present distinct jurisdictional challenges. Unlike policies sold by a single insurance company, Lloyd’s policies are sold through a marketplace in which risks are underwritten by syndicates composed of individual investors known as “Names.” A single syndicate may include dozens—or even more than a thousand—Names.

A recent decision from the District of Maryland underscores a recurring—but often underutilized—opportunity for policyholders: securing and enforcing additional insured coverage under another party’s liability policy. In Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Builders Premier Insurance Co., the court held that an equipment lessor qualified as an additional insured under the lessee’s policy and was entitled to a primary defense.

The decision is a useful reminder that additional insured coverage can fundamentally shift defense obligations and materially reduce a policyholder’s exposure. We build on the decision to highlight the practical steps policyholders should take to ensure that all potentially available insurance is identified and pursued.

Hunton is pleased to announce that its insurance coverage practice was recognized nationally for Insurance: Dispute Resolution – Policyholder in the recently released 2026 Chambers USA guide. The team also received state rankings in Florida (Insurance: Dispute Resolution), Georgia (Insurance), the District of Columbia (Insurance: Policyholder), and Massachusetts (Insurance).

For colleges and universities, enforcement actions brought by federal government agencies, such as the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the US Department of Justice (DOJ), or the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), raise a financial threat before any lawsuit is ever filed or before any federal funding is pulled. As the federal government increases its scrutiny of higher education institutions, responding to investigations can require significant expenditures on outside counsel, document production, and compliance efforts. Many colleges and universities may not realize until it is too late that these costs fall outside the scope of their insurance coverage.

The mantra “delay, deny, defend” is frequently referenced in discussions of insurance claims handling, though insurers will invariably disavow these tactics. While it would be facially improper for an insurer to delay a coverage decision to gain a tactical advantage, empirical examples nonetheless exist. This very dynamic was addressed by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals when it handed policyholders a win in Hypoluxo Mariner’s Cay Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 4D2024‑2250 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 1, 2026), reversing a trial court order dismissing a condominium association’s Hurricane Irma coverage lawsuit against its property insurer.

In a recent client alert, Hunton insurance attorneys Geoffrey B. Fehling and Charlotte E. Leszinske discuss D&O insurance considerations for shareholder derivative liability claims.  A recent complaint filed in the federal court alleges that an opportunistic investor used his status as a shareholder to pressure the company into business deals that would benefit him personally, on threat of a derivative action.  See Maddox Defense, Inc. v. Envirotech Vehicles, Inc. v. Diveroli, et al., No. 26-cv-2992.  The shareholder is alleged to have held himself out as the company’s representative in a lucrative government contract, and when things went south, sued.  He then allegedly offered to drop the lawsuit if the company entered into different contracts to its detriment and his benefit.

The decision underscores the importance of maintaining D&O liability insurance to protect against shareholder lawsuits, especially those brought derivatively on behalf of the company, as those claims can pose unique challenges on indemnification, exclusions, and other coverage issues.