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

Second Department Finds Absolute Lead Exclusion Properly Added To Policy And Excludes Coverage For Action Alleging Injury From Lead Exposure

The owner of a residential building in Brooklyn engaged an insurance broker to procure insurance coverage for the building that included liability coverage for lead exposure. Brownstone Agency, Inc., acting as the agent for Everest

Second Department Finds No Coverage Based Upon Policy’s Designated Premises Limitation

305 Union St. Station, Inc., doing business as Kittery Restaurant, operates a restaurant in Brooklyn. Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured when she was struck by a bicycle operated by an employee of the restaurant who was on his way back from a food delivery.

With the bellwether social media addiction trials wrapping up in Los Angeles, we thought a good place to start this month’s update is with a coverage decision out of Delaware (where Meta is based) on whether Meta’s insurers must defend those suits. A Delaware trial court considers whether social media addiction complaints, when stripped of

First Department Finds Ambiguity In Exception To Exclusion And Interprets It In Favor Of Coverage

Mount Hawley Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to a contractor that excluded coverage for property damage resulting from the insured’s labor, except for “interior tile” work. The insured contractor was retained to refurbish a bathroom. To level

It was a busy month for courts on insurance issues.

We begin in Illinois. If an insured has a permit that authorizes a certain level of emissions, are those emissions pollutants for purposes of a pollution exclusion? The Illinois Supreme Court instructs on the relevance of a permit when assessing whether a pollution exclusion applies.

Southern District Finds Mutual Mistake And Reforms Excess Policy To Avoid Illusory Coverage

The insured, a plumbing company, faced millions of dollars in potential liability for claims arising from a fire at an apartment building where the insured performed work. The insured sought coverage for those claims under a primary policy issued by The Travelers

Claims-made policies have automatic extended reporting periods that last for a stated amount of time. But those extensions end if the insured purchases a new policy. What if the new policy does not cover the claim? Is the extended reported period reinstated? As a Maryland federal court explains, that depends on the language of the

On December 19, 2025, Governor Hochul signed the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act into law. The law amends CPLR Section 1007 to impose strict time limits on the commencement of third-party complaints and is set to take effect on April 18, 2026 (120 days after enactment). There have been Chapter Amendments

Southern District Finds Insurer Has Standing To Seek Additional Insured Coverage For Entities It Is Not Defending

A Manhattan property owner retained On Star Management LLC to manage a renovation project at its property and On Star, in turn, retained Batco Associates, LLC, to perform work at the project. Batco then retained CMG Improvements, Inc.,