Coverage Litigation

Some coverage disputes do more than resolve a single claim. They define policy language, shape future claims handling, affect settlement leverage, and determine exposure across an insurer’s broader book of business. When the stakes are that high, insurers need counsel with the judgment to see the full consequences of the dispute and the litigation experience to win it.

BatesCarey is built for high-stakes coverage litigation. Major domestic and international insurers and reinsurers trust the firm to handle complex coverage disputes in state and federal courts throughout the United States, at both the trial and appellate levels. BatesCarey represents insurers and reinsurers exclusively—giving the firm a focused understanding of the industry, policies, claim dynamics, and strategic consequences that drive coverage litigation.

Coverage litigation at this level requires more than technical legal skill. It requires command of the policy language, fluency across coverage lines, practical understanding of claim handling, and the creativity to develop arguments where the law is unsettled. BatesCarey brings that combination to disputes involving primary, umbrella, excess, and reinsurance coverage, often in matters involving multiple jurisdictions, multiple policy years, layered insurance programs, and substantial financial exposure.

The firm handles coverage litigation across a wide range of lines, including commercial general liability (CGL), professional liability, Directors and Officers (D&O) liability, Employment Practices Liability (EPL), public-entity liability, motor carrier and business auto liability, commercial property, cyber risk, reinsurance, and fidelity.

BatesCarey’s litigation approach is disciplined from the outset. The firm identifies the issues that will drive the result, develops a record that supports the coverage position, coordinates with local counsel where venue requires it, and moves efficiently toward the procedural path most likely to produce a favorable outcome. That may mean early dispositive motion practice, coordinated multi-jurisdictional strategy, trial, appeal, arbitration, mediation, or negotiated resolution.

Clients turn to BatesCarey when the matter is complex, the exposure is significant, and the result may influence future claims. The firm understands that a coverage dispute can affect more than one insured, one policy, or one lawsuit. It can affect underwriting intent, policy drafting, reserve strategy, claims practices, market expectations, and the development of insurance law itself.

Representative Cases

• Colemon v. Westport Ins. Co., 727 S.W.3d 371 (Ky. 2025); The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed appellate ruling that defeated a $28 million insurance claim and established Kentucky precedent that malicious prosecution “personal injury” “occurs” only on date of wrongful charging, and that insurance is not continuously triggered during the subsequent years of suffering and deprivation of rights.
• Hertz Corporation v. ACE American Ins., et al., 2024 WL 4668435 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 9, 2024), aff’d 2025 WL 3159198 (Del. Nov. 12, 2025); The court examined coverage for over 300 claims arising from Hertz’s flawed inventory tracking procedures, which resulted in over $168 million paid for the false arrests of customers. The court found that personal injury claims can each only trigger the coverage in effect when the underlying offense took place and likely are separate “occurrences.” Based on this ruling, the parties stipulated that there were no claims to constitute an “occurrence” that exceeded the $10 million retention in any single period.
• Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Galey Consulting, LLC, 2025 IL App (1^st) 241909-U (Ill. App. Ct., First Dist.); Obtained summary judgment ruling affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court that Circuit Court could consider the insured’s statements—specifically the insured’s notice to its E&O insurer that its email had been hacked—as extrinsic evidence to justify the application of Cyber Exclusion to preclude coverage for a wire fraud loss where claimant’s lawsuit amounted to a transparent attempt to plead into coverage.
• Opioid Master Disburs. Trust II v. ACE et al., Case No. 22SL-CC02974 (St. Louis County Cir. Ct., March 10, 2025); Over $1 billion in opioid manufacturer’s liabilities for “unbranded marketing” of opioids to the public all “arise from” sales of and representations about policyholder’s products, and therefore coverage was precluded by products-completed operations hazard policy provisions.
• GD Group v. Medmarc Casualty Ins. Co., Case No. 23 C 176 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 31, 2025); Obtained summary judgment ruling that millions of dollars in surgical supplies that were recalled because they were packaged with policyholder’s allegedly moldy surgical gowns did not constitute “property damage” or “impaired property” under Illinois law, and extrinsic conjecture of potential cross-contamination did not trigger duty to defend.
• Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. ACE Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., et al., No. 8:22-cv-2569 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2024); Achieved ruling that multi-billion-dollar governmental opioid lawsuits present generalized economic losses and do not seek to impose covered liability for damages “because of bodily injury” where there is no claim to prove causation or damages for any individual’s injury.
• In re CVS Opioid Ins. Litig., No. N22C-02-045, 2024 WL 3882607 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 2024); Obtained summary judgment ruling in coordination with other commercial general liability insurers that opioid lawsuits seeking to recover generalized economic losses suffered by third-party payors and hospitals in response to the opioid crisis do not seek damages “because of” “bodily injury” or “property damage.”
• In re CVS Opioid Ins. Litig., No. N22C-02-045, 2023 WL 6059801 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 25, 2023), as corrected (Sept. 14, 2023); Obtained summary judgment ruling in coordination with other commercial general liability insurers that opioid lawsuits seeking to recover generalized economic losses suffered by governmental entities to abate the opioid crisis do not seek damages “because of” “bodily injury” or “property damage.”
• Westport Ins. Corp. v. Sycamore Community Unit School District #427, — F.Supp.3d —,  2021 WL 3674614 (N.D. Ill.); Obtained judgment on the pleadings holding that insurer client owed no coverage in connection with an underlying sexual abuse claim because late notice and a criminal/dishonest acts exclusion barred coverage for, respectively, an insured school district and its alleged former employee.
• Sanders, et al. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., et al., No. 124565 (Illinois Supreme Court); Obtained judgment holding that coverage under occurrence-based policies for malicious prosecution claims is triggered only at the time of the wrongful charging and not in subsequent years of retrials or exoneration, at a cost-savings of $10M to the insurers.
• Financial Pacific Insurance Company v. Gotham Insurance Company, CV 2018-005881 (Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County); Obtained summary judgment ruling that insurer does not owe coverage for the liability of its policyholder’s alleged predecessor company, which the claimant alleged to be a legally indistinguishable entity from the insured policyholder.
• Rockhill Ins. Companies v. CSAA Ins. Exchange, Case No. 3:17-cv-00496-HDM-WGC (D. Nevada), affirmed No. 19-16716 (9th Cir. 2020); Claim seeking over $2.5 million for negligent spraying of Sporicidin excluded by general liability mold exclusion, and no bad faith under Contractor’s Pollution coverage where claimant never made settlement demand within the eroding limits of the pollution coverage, and where Rockhill’s settlement offers traced the advice of defense counsel.
• Westport Ins. Corp. v. California Casualty Management Co., 916 F.3d 769, 2019 WL 692668 (9th Cir.); On behalf of school district’s insurer, Westport Insurance Corporation, successfully recovered over $3.3 million from the excess insurer of three school administrators that had refused to participate in Westport’s settlement of molestation claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of Westport, and concluded that a California statute does not bar the insurer of a school district from seeking recovery from the insurer of public employees and that the non-settling insurer could not challenge Westport’s allocation of the settlement between the various victims and policy years.
• Gage County v. Nebraska Intergovernmental Risk Management Association, Case No. CI 17-0339 (Lancaster County, NE); In a matter of first impression, obtained ruling for excess insurers that the date six wrongfully incarcerated individuals were first charged was the single date triggering their constitutional injuries, and that continuing constitutional wrongs into later insurance periods did not trigger new insurance for the $28.1 million malicious prosecution judgment.
• Westport Insurance Corporation v. City of Waukegan, et al., 2017 WL 4046343 (N.D. Ill.); Achieved summary judgment ruling that insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify with regard to $8 million claim involving wrongfully incarcerated inmate whose second conviction took place during insurer’s policy period.
• National Surety Corp. v. First Specialty Insurance Corp., 2016 WL 7057503 (N.J. Super. Ct.) appeal dismissed A-001554-16T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.); Obtained summary judgment in favor of primary insurer establishing that the insurer could use its discretion to settle on behalf of one of two sets of Additional Insureds, and that doing so would extinguish the duty to defend all remaining insureds and Additional Insureds.
• South Campus Development Team LLC v. First Specialty Insurance Corporation, Case No. 11 (Cook County, IL); Secured summary judgment for the insurer finding that construction defects and water intrusion into condominiums were not an “occurrence” or “property damage,” and the insurer that withdrew its defense without filing a declaratory judgment action was not estopped from challenging coverage.
• UnitedHealth Group Incorporated v. Columbia Casualty Co., Case No. 05-1289-PJS (D. Minn.); 
Served as lead counsel in disputing an insurance claim by UnitedHealth to recoup over $450 million that UnitedHealth paid to reimburse its subscribers’ medical bills which had allegedly been systematically underpaid by UnitedHealth.
• AXIS Surplus Ins. Co. v. Geringer, Case No. 14-cv-00244 (D. Utah); Represented U.S. insurer in interpleader action over competing claims for amounts in excess of Side A D&O policy limits.
• XL Specialty Insurance Company v. WMI Liquidating Trust, Case No. 499, 2013 (Del. Supr. Ct.); Successfully defended a U.S. insurer in declaratory judgment action seeking coverage under excess Side A D&O Policy.
• Martin Resource Management Corporation v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. 12-758 (E.D. Tex.); Successfully defended a U.S. insurer in breach of contract and bad faith action seeking coverage under excess private D&O policy.
• Great American Insurance Company v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Case No. 13-1017 (W.D. Wash.); Filed a declaratory judgment action on behalf of U.S. insurer seeking a finding of no coverage under primary nonprofit D&O policy.
• Carlyle Investment Management, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, Case No. 13-CA-3190 (D.C. Super. Ct.); Defended two U.S. insurers in declaratory judgment and breach of contract action seeking coverage under excess E&O policies.
• Troy Lillie v. Stanford Trust Company, Case No. 13-3127 (N.D. Tex.); Defended a Bermudian excess E&O insurer in direct action lawsuit.
• XL Specialty Insurance Company v. Michael W. Perry, Case No. 11-2078 (C.D. Cal.); Filed a declaratory judgment action on behalf of U.S. insurer seeking a finding of no coverage under Side A D&O policy.
• YRC Worldwide, Inc. v. XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd., Case No. 11-cv-2534 (D. Kan.); Successfully defended a Bermudian insurer in a declaratory judgment and breach of contract action seeking coverage under an EPL policy.
• Gastar Exploration Ltd. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, Cause No. 2010-11236 (Tex. Dist. Ct.); Successfully defended a U.S. insurer in a declaratory judgment and breach of contract action seeking coverage under a D&O policy and obtained summary judgment based on interrelationship of claims provision.
• Princeton Eagle West Insurance Company Limited v. HSBC Finance Corp., Case No. 10 CH 17094 (Ill. Ch. Ct.); Filed declaratory judgment action on behalf of Bermudian insurer seeking a finding of no coverage under D&O policy based on prior made claim exclusion.
• AXIS Reinsurance Company v. GeoStar Corp., Case No. 09-cv-12608 (E.D. Mich.); Filed a declaratory judgment action on behalf of U.S. insurer seeking to rescind D&O policy.
• Allied World National Assurance Company v. James A. Knight, Case No. 09 CH 27403 (Ill. Ch. Ct.); Filed a declaratory judgment action on behalf of U.S. insurer seeking a finding of no coverage under primary D&O policy.
• J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., Index No. 600979/09 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Successfully defended a U.S. insurer in declaratory judgment action seeking coverage under a Financial Institution E&O policy.
• TOUSA, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 09-02281 (S.D. Fla.); Successfully defended a Bermudian insurer in a declaratory judgment action seeking coverage under Side A D&O policy.
• Aon Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Case No. 06 CH 16852 (Ill. Ch. Ct.); Successfully defended a London insurer in a declaratory judgment action seeking coverage under an Insurance Broker E&O policy.
• Frank Andrew Dunn v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, Case No. 5043/06 (Ontario Super. Ct.); Successfully defended Bermudian and U.S. insurers in a declaratory judgment action seeking coverage under D&O policies.
• Prudential Equity Group LLC v. Chubb Custom Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 06C092-016 JRS (Del. Ch. Ct.); Successfully defended a U.S. insurer in a declaratory judgment action seeking coverage under a Financial Institution E&O policy.
• Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC v. HealthSouth Corp., CV-03-BE-1139-S (N.D. Ala.); Filed a declaratory judgment action on behalf of a London insurer seeking to rescind a D&O policy.
• Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 243 A.D.3d 838, 246 N.Y.S.3d 235 (2d Dep’t 2025); Successfully obtained affirmance of a judgment holding that an insurer had no duty to indemnify damages due to an assault.
• Okun v. Pobuckra Props., LLC, No. 2023-000063, 2025 WL 989835 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2025); Challenged an adverse wrongful death judgment that imposed case-dispositive spoliation sanctions.
• New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. TSG Ski & Golf, LLC, 128 F.4th 1337 (10th Cir. 2025); Successfully obtained affirmance for AIG insurers that no coverage was owed for an underlying lawsuit alleging the insureds knowingly published false statements in a debt-collection letter, based on policy exclusions for personal and advertising injury arising from publication of knowingly false material.
• In re Alexion Pharms., Inc. Ins. Appeals, 339 A.3d 694 (Del. 2025); Successfully obtained reversal of a judgment against multiple D&O insurers by persuading Delaware’s high court that a later-filed securities lawsuit related back to an earlier SEC investigation, eliminating coverage under the D&O policies in effect when the securities lawsuit was filed.
• Swan v. Villas Condo. Unit Owners’ Ass’n, 2024-Ohio-2313, 246 N.E.3d 1031; Successfully obtained affirmance of a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, even though the parties had failed to memorialize the agreement in writing.
• Tonoga, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 201 A.D.3d 1091, 159 N.Y.S.3d 252 (3d Dep’t 2022); Successfully secured affirmance for AIG insurers based on qualified and absolute pollution exclusions barring coverage for PFAS environmental contamination—the first published decision finding that PFAS chemicals qualify as irritants, contaminants, or pollutants.
• San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 809 F. App’x 407 (9th Cir. 2020); Successfully obtained reversal and entry of judgment for an umbrella/excess insurer, with the court holding that pre-1986 policies did not cover pre-suit claims and were subject to general aggregate limits for property damage losses.
• Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hub City Enter., Inc., 808 F. App’x 705 (11th Cir. 2020); Successfully secured affirmance of judgment that the insurer owed no duty to defend a personal injury action, because the instrumentality of injury qualified as an “amusement device” under a policy exclusion.
• Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 939 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2019); Successfully defended judgment refusing to expand Pennsylvania’s four-corners rule and confirming that faulty workmanship does not constitute an “occurrence.”
• Schnabel Found. Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 780 F. App’x 5 (4th Cir. 2019); Successfully secured affirmance of a judgment finding no coverage under a wrap-up excess policy for repair costs and delay damages arising from an insured’s faulty support of excavation work.
• Busch Props., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 815 F.3d 1123 (8th Cir. 2016); Successfully obtained affirmance of a judgment that an insurer had no duty to indemnify a settlement, because the insured was not legally obligated to make the payment and no claims or lawsuits had been filed against the insured.
• Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 57 N.E.3d 97 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015); Successfully obtained affirmance of a $13 million judgment in defense costs and prejudgment interest, following reversal of an erroneous duty to defend ruling.
• Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 988 N.E.2d 897 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013); Successfully obtained reversal of a judgment for Chiquita, with the court holding that payments to Colombian terrorists were not accidental and that the injuries occurred outside the policies’ coverage territory.