Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

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.

Because insurance law is a creature of state law, it is rare for the United States Supreme Court to wade into insurance matters. But as our colleagues explained last fall, the Supreme Court agreed to do just that when it granted certiorari in Truck Insurance v. Kaiser Gypsum, a Fourth Circuit bankruptcy case. On June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an opinion unanimously reversing the Fourth Circuit. In doing so, the Court held that insurers with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims are “parties in interest” under the United States Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, may appear and be heard, including to object to Chapter 11 reorganization plans. This decision clarifies an important issue and paves the way for potentially greater participation by insurers in the Chapter 11 process.

In a victory for policyholders, and an honorable mention for Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the dispersal of concrete dust that damaged inventory stored in an aircraft part distributor’s warehouse was a pollutant, as defined by the policy, but that it also constituted “smoke” as that term was defined in the dictionary, thereby implicating an exception to the policy’s pollution exclusion.  The Court then granted summary judgment for the policyholder, who had suffered a $3.2 million loss.[1]