April 2026 Insurance Update

Our April update highlights some of the insurance questions courts were asked to decide this past month.

We all know about the broad duty to defend that applies to many primary liability policies. But does that same rule apply for title insurance?

A few months ago, we wrote about a federal district court’s ruling that found abuse of process was not the same as malicious prosecution for purposes of the Personal Injury coverage. The insured appealed. Did the Eighth Circuit agree?

A road commissioner used construction debris for erosion control, not realizing that it was unclean fill and illegal. Was property damage caused by his mistake the result of an “occurrence”?

A class action suit complained about toxins in hair products that were unsafe for human exposure, and asserted claims for fraud and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Did these allegations trigger an insurer’s duty to defend against claims seeking damages because of bodily injury or property damage?

Dentists sometimes use nitrous oxide when performing otherwise painful procedures. Does this and other legitimate uses take a claim arising from nitrous oxide abuse outside the reach of a psychotropic substances exclusion?

Texas’s prompt payment law punishes insurers that fail to timely pay first party claims. Does the statute apply when an insurance adjuster, who mishandled an auto claim, seeks indemnity from its E&O insurer for an above-the-policy-limit settlement with an injured claimant?

We hope you find these cases informative.