Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

A recent Ninth Circuit decision—Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2025 WL 3754348 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2025) —reversed a Nevada district court’s ruling in favor of a D&O insurer that had refused to cover a lawsuit asserting both contract and tort claims under the policy’s contractual liability exclusion. The ruling is a timely reminder for policyholders about why they should carefully scrutinize coverage denials, especially overbroad readings of contract exclusions, and consider pursuing insurers who wrongfully deny coverage.

The Northern District of California recently rejected an insurer’s attempt at avoiding its duty to defend the insured based on erroneous application of a prior knowledge exclusion. The case highlights the breadth of an insurer’s duty to defend and reiterates that to avoid this duty, “it is the insurer’s burden to demonstrate there is no possible theory that would bring a single issue within coverage.”

A recent decision by the Fifth Circuit illustrates an important principle in insurance coverage disputes: The wording of insurance policies and basic grammar principles are important to coverage determinations, placing the onus on the insurers that draft insurance contracts to use clear and unambiguous language, especially in seeking to deny coverage based on exclusions. In Paloma Resources, L.L.C. v. Axis Ins. Co., No. 22-20228 (5th Cir. July 7, 2025), the insurance policy included an intellectual property exclusion, which used the phrase “actual or alleged” before listing a series of clauses. The court held that use of “the” immediately before the “misappropriation of ideas or trade secrets” clause in the exclusion meant that it was reasonable to interpret the exclusion as applying only to actual misappropriation, rather than broader actual and alleged misappropriation. Because the policyholder’s narrower reading of the exclusion based on the word “the” was reasonable, the court was required to adopt it, regardless of whether the insurer’s preferred, narrower interpretation was equally or even more reasonable.

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.