Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape the way businesses operate, from human resources and operational efficiency to cybersecurity and financial reporting. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that companies are calling on AI to facilitate and enhance corporate filings and shareholder communications. Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) submissions in publicly-traded companies’ Securities and Exchange Commission filings are no exception. These submissions have been viewed by securities analysts as a sort of corporate DNA which, if read properly, could reveal telling traits and warning signs about future corporate performance. While it might be common knowledge that analysts are using AI to analyze MD&A submissions, less clear is whether (and which) companies are using AI to generate their MD&As.

In today’s digital world, data breaches due to vendor failures are becoming increasingly common, often resulting in costly fallout. While insurance can provide a safety net, the interaction between cyber insurance and vendor contracts is crucial for effective recovery and risk management. Vendor contracts should not be treated as mere formalities but as vital frameworks that contain specific, detailed provisions regarding data security obligations to ensure accountability and minimize vulnerabilities.

The landscape of college athletics is undergoing a seismic shift with the rise of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. As student-athletes gain the ability to monetize their personal brands, a new era of opportunity—and liability—is expanding far beyond the athletes. In addition to the student-athletes, NIL stakeholders include universities, athletic conferences and organizations, sponsors, and the athletes’ families, among others. Whether the goal is to guard against emerging liabilities or protect the NIL revenue stream itself, stakeholders should consider both traditional and specialty lines of insurance. Here’s what you need to know.

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP is pleased to announce that its Insurance Coverage practice was recognized nationally for Insurance: Dispute Resolution – Policyholder in the recently released 2025 Chambers USA guide. The team also received state rankings in Florida (Insurance: Dispute Resolution), Georgia (Insurance), the District of Columbia (Insurance: Policyholder), and Massachusetts (Insurance).

In addition, the 2025 rankings included individual recognitions for Lorelie “Lorie” S. Masters (USA Nationwide and District of Columbia), Michael S. Levine (District of Columbia), Koorosh “KT” Talieh (District of Columbia), Walter J. Andrews (Florida), Andrea DeField (Florida), Cary D. Steklof (Florida), Lawrence J. Bracken II (Georgia), and Geoffrey B. Fehling (Massachusetts).

Risk professionals and insurers alike continue to monitor the rapid evolution and deployment of  artificial intelligence (AI). With increased understanding comes increased efforts to manage and limit exposure. Exclusions to coverage offer insurers potentially broad protection against evolving AI risk. Most recently, one insurer, Berkley, has introduced the first so-called “Absolute” AI exclusion in several specialty lines of liability coverage, signaling an even broader effort to compartmentalize AI risk.

In April 2025, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a judgment against a Florida lodge and held that a jury should determine whether the failure of the lodge’s insurer to initiate settlement proceedings before a claim was filed constituted bad faith. In reversing the district court, the Eleventh Circuit reinforced the key duty imposed on insurers under Florida law to diligently and carefully investigate claims and act with an appropriate degree of care to protect their insureds or face consequences such as bad faith liability.

A Delaware court recently held in Mattel, Inc. and Fisher Price, Inc. v. XL Insurance America, Inc., et al., that a series of product liability claims dating back to 2013 constituted a single “occurrence” under the toy manufacturer’s and distributor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policies.

The case stemmed from Mattel’s request for defense and indemnity coverage in response to claims that certain toys caused bodily injuries to infants. The CGL coverage tower, which included policies issued by multiple primary, excess, and umbrella insurers, spanned from 2011 to 2020.

It was only a matter of time before new insurance coverages targeting the risks posed by artificial intelligence (AI) would hit the market. That time is now.

As the use of AI continues to proliferate, so too does our understanding of the risks presented by this broad and powerful technology. Some risks appear novel in form while others mirror traditional exposures that have long been viewed as insurable causes of loss. AI-related risks are made all the more novel because the meaning of AI itself is not only up for debate, but is constantly evolving as the technology matures. This mixture of old and new has the potential to create coverage gaps in even the most comprehensive insurance programs. Hence the development of specialized, AI-specific insurance solutions. In just the past few weeks, two new affirmative AI coverages have entered the market, signaling an acceleration in this trend.

Coordinating various insurance products to avoid coverage gaps can be a complex undertaking as exposures are shifted from one policy to another across different insurers, policy forms, and coverages. One recent case, Singh, Rx, PLLC, et al. v. Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina, et al., No. 24-1678, left a pharmacy without coverage when a professional services exclusion barred coverage that was not covered under a separate professional liability policy geared at covering those risks. The case is a reminder of the importance of understanding insurance policy exclusions, particularly in the context of professional services, and especially where the excluded risks are not covered by other policies.

For decades, homeowners and other insurance policies have included broad pollution exclusions, often referred to as a “total pollution exclusion.” In a recent decision in Wheeler v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins., No. S-18849 (Alaska Feb. 28, 2025), the Alaska Supreme Court held that a “total pollution exclusion” in a homeowners insurance policy did not apply to exclude coverage for injury arising out of exposure to carbon monoxide emitted by an improperly installed home appliance. Examining the breadth of the exclusion and applying the generally held principle that exclusions are to be construed narrowly, the court thus fulfilled the policyholder’s reasonable expectation of coverage for injuries resulting from the carbon monoxide exposure.