Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

If recent years have taught insurance practitioners anything, it is that the most consequential coverage disputes rarely turn on novelty alone. In 2025, courts continued to resolve high‑stakes insurance disputes by returning to first principles—examining when claims are related, how losses and occurrences are defined and aggregated, and how policy language allocates risk across time and conduct. D&O coverage and other core insurance law issues again occupied center stage, while decisions in property, cyber, and liability disputes reinforced a familiar theme: policy interpretation remains the decisive factor in determining whether coverage is available in an increasingly complex claims environment. As the decisions discussed below demonstrate, 2025 confirmed that even as risks evolve, coverage disputes remain grounded in careful, policy‑specific analysis.

North Carolina has once again favored policyholders seeking insurance coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. A recent decision from the Middle District of North Carolina in Durham Wood Fired Pizza Co. LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., reinforces the North State Deli decision and suggests that a failure to provide coverage for COVID-19 business interruption claims may constitute bad faith.

On November 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by insurers seeking to challenge denial of their partial summary judgment motion on the issue of whether Covid-19 may cause “direct physical loss, damage or destruction” of property under an all-risk insurance policy that includes affirmative coverage for loss caused by infectious disease.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently handed policyholders an important win in Life Time, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., reversing a trial court ruling that had capped coverage under a communicable disease endorsement at the $1 million per occurrence limit. Relying on the express language of the communicable disease coverage at issue, the appellate court held that government shutdown orders—not the COVID-19 pandemic itself—constituted the operative “occurrences” under Life Time’s policy. By interpreting the cause of loss in this way, the court expanded Life Time’s recovery from a single $1 million limit to 29 separate limits, one for each jurisdiction that independently ordered closure of Life Time’s business locations.