Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. RI Settlement Trust, No. 61 EAP 2024 (Pa. July 21, 2026), rejected three insurers’ attempts to avoid coverage for lawsuits alleging that hotel operators enabled or profited from sex trafficking based on Pennsylvania’s purported public policy against sex trafficking.

The court found that Pennsylvania had no such articulated public policy against insuring those kinds of claims and, absent an exclusion barring coverage for the alleged conduct, the insurance contract would be enforced as written. The ruling is an important reminder for policyholders that courts will enforce the agreed-upon language in policies and will not allow insurers to deny coverage by invoking insurability defenses to eliminate coverage without a clearly articulated public policy in the relevant jurisdiction.

On March 3, 2021, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a landmark decision holding that Delaware law should be applied in disputes over directors and officers liability (“D&O”) insurance policies sold to companies incorporated in Delaware. RSUI Indem. Co. v. Murdock, et al. No. 154, 2020, C.A. No. N16C-01-104 CCLD (Del. Mar. 3, 2021). The court addressed this and other key issues in the long-running dispute over D&O insurance purchased by Dole Food Company, specifically addressing issues raised by Dole’s eighth-layer excess insurer, RSUI, which provided $10 million coverage excess of $75 million.

The court decided multiple important issues, finding that liability for alleged fraud is insurable under Delaware public policy, RSUI’s Profit/Fraud Exclusion did not bar coverage because there had been no “final adjudication” of fraud, and the “larger sums rule” governed allocation issues. However, among these important rulings, the most significant may be the Supreme Court’s ruling that Delaware governs the interpretation of D&O insurance issued to a company incorporated in Delaware.  The court specifically rejected the insurer’s arguments that California law (which might preclude coverage) should apply under a policy that was purchased and issued in California to a Delaware corporation headquartered in California.

A federal judge in Colorado recently ruled that a commercial property and general liability policy issued to a medical marijuana dispensary and its cultivation facility can provide coverage for harvested marijuana that is damaged or destroyed.  In the case of The Green Earth Wellness Center, LLC v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company, smoke and ash from a wildfire entered the facility’s ventilation system and damaged Green Earth’s potted pot plants to the tune of $200,000, with an additional $40,000 in damage to plants that had already been harvested and were being prepared for ...