Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

A self-insured retention is a dollar amount specified in the insurance policy that an insured must pay toward a claim before insurance coverage begins to apply to pay for remaining covered amounts. While ordinarily straightforward, insurers may sometimes argue otherwise. In a recent summary judgment ruling in The Archdiocese of New York, et al. v. Century Indem. Company, et al., No. 652825/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 8, 2025), based on the plain language of the insurance policies, a New York state trial court rejected an insurer attempt to treat a self-insured retention as reducing the amount covered under the policies. 

The Eleventh Circuit recently confirmed the rule that “other insurance” clauses should not be used to disadvantage policyholders. Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Georgia Sch. Bd. Ass’n - Risk Mgmt. Fund, No. 22-13779, 2023 WL 5977299, at *1 (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2023). In a dispute between an insurance company and a public risk management fund, both insurance policies included “other insurance” clauses stating that each insurer would only provide excess insurance coverage where the policyholder is covered by other insurance. The district court found that the clauses were irreconcilable because both insurance policies could not provide only excess insurance coverage—at least one policy would need to provide primary coverage. Because of the conflict, the Georgia federal district court applied Georgia’s irreconcilable-clauses rule and held that each policy must provide coverage to the policyholder on a pro rata basis. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of Georgia’s irreconcilable-clauses rule.

Three significant insurance disputes are pending before the New York Court of Appeals, and Hunton partner Syed Ahmad discusses the importance of those cases in Law 360’s article titled 3 Insurance Cases To Watch At NY’s High Court.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently found an excess insurer liable for environmental costs related to a leak in an insured’s pipeline.  In doing so, the court rejected the insurer’s argument that liability for the costs should be spread among policies issued by other insurers spanning nearly three decades.  The opinion is available here.