Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

A recent decision from the District of Maryland underscores a recurring—but often underutilized—opportunity for policyholders: securing and enforcing additional insured coverage under another party’s liability policy. In Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Builders Premier Insurance Co., the court held that an equipment lessor qualified as an additional insured under the lessee’s policy and was entitled to a primary defense.

The decision is a useful reminder that additional insured coverage can fundamentally shift defense obligations and materially reduce a policyholder’s exposure. We build on the decision to highlight the practical steps policyholders should take to ensure that all potentially available insurance is identified and pursued.

Hunton is pleased to announce that its insurance coverage practice was recognized nationally for Insurance: Dispute Resolution – Policyholder in the recently released 2026 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).

For colleges and universities, enforcement actions brought by federal government agencies, such as the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the US Department of Justice (DOJ), or the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), raise a financial threat before any lawsuit is ever filed or before any federal funding is pulled. As the federal government increases its scrutiny of higher education institutions, responding to investigations can require significant expenditures on outside counsel, document production, and compliance efforts. Many colleges and universities may not realize until it is too late that these costs fall outside the scope of their insurance coverage.

The mantra “delay, deny, defend” is frequently referenced in discussions of insurance claims handling, though insurers will invariably disavow these tactics. While it would be facially improper for an insurer to delay a coverage decision to gain a tactical advantage, empirical examples nonetheless exist. This very dynamic was addressed by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals when it handed policyholders a win in Hypoluxo Mariner’s Cay Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 4D2024‑2250 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 1, 2026), reversing a trial court order dismissing a condominium association’s Hurricane Irma coverage lawsuit against its property insurer.

In a recent client alert, Hunton insurance attorneys Geoffrey B. Fehling and Charlotte E. Leszinske discuss D&O insurance considerations for shareholder derivative liability claims.  A recent complaint filed in the federal court alleges that an opportunistic investor used his status as a shareholder to pressure the company into business deals that would benefit him personally, on threat of a derivative action.  See Maddox Defense, Inc. v. Envirotech Vehicles, Inc. v. Diveroli, et al., No. 26-cv-2992.  The shareholder is alleged to have held himself out as the company’s representative in a lucrative government contract, and when things went south, sued.  He then allegedly offered to drop the lawsuit if the company entered into different contracts to its detriment and his benefit.

The decision underscores the importance of maintaining D&O liability insurance to protect against shareholder lawsuits, especially those brought derivatively on behalf of the company, as those claims can pose unique challenges on indemnification, exclusions, and other coverage issues. 

As reported in the Washington Post, the cost of cargo theft losses in the US is surging, even though the number of reported incidents has not changed. This surge reflects the type of cargo being stolen: thieves are targeting high-value technology, including electronics, computer chips, and servers destined for high-tech facilities and data centers. These components can be worth tens of millions of dollars per shipment, thus making proper insurance more important than ever.

While cargo theft is not a new risk, the escalating value of stolen goods marks a notable shift in the exposure landscape. For commercial policyholders, this trend raises important insurance and risk management considerations—particularly whether existing cargo, inland marine, and stock throughput limits remain adequate in light of evolving loss severity.