Policyholder Pulse

Delaware Supreme Court Rejects Application of the “Bump-Up” Exclusion in Harman Decision

Tamara D. Bruno, Chris Popecki and Hadhy Ayaz — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 19:46:42 +0000

When corporate transactions engender shareholder litigation, Directors’ and Officers’ liability insurers all too often invoke the so-called “bump-up” exclusion to bar coverage of such claims. These provisions, common in D&O policies, purport to exclude coverage for settlements or judgments that effectively increase the deal price in acquisitions, the theory being that D&O insurance was not intended to act as a backstop to the share price obtained by management in selling a company. D&O insurers have for years tried to expand the application of these provisions in attempts to narrow Side B/C coverage for M&A transaction-related losses.

SDNY Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Stretch D&O Policy’s “Subsequent Acts” Exclusion

Peter M. Gillon, Edward Flanders, Elizabeth J. Dye and Tamara D. Bruno — Wed, 18 Mar 2026 18:39:07 +0000

In a recent decision from the Southern District of New York, Judge Jed S. Rakoff rejected an insurer’s attempt to stretch a “Subsequent Acts” exclusion beyond its text and denied a motion to dismiss a policyholder’s coverage action. The decision in AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. v. Forge Underwriting Ltd. underscores a familiar but critical point in New York insurance law: exclusions are strictly construed, and insurers bear a heavy burden when they attempt to defeat coverage at the pleading stage.

[E]stopping Insurers from Taking Inconsistent Coverage Positions

Mark J. Plumer and Madison Kim — Tue, 17 Mar 2026 20:53:06 +0000

Most insurance policies use standardized wording drafted by the insurance industry. Coverage disputes frequently center on these standardized wordings. Policyholders only sporadically face significant claims that escalate into disputes with their insurers and result in litigation. Insurers, on the other hand, litigate identical or similar claims on a regular basis. Some issues lend themselves to […]

The post [E]stopping Insurers from Taking Inconsistent Coverage Positions appeared first on Policyholder Pulse.

Conflict Premium: Insurance and Supply Chains During the Iran War

Pillsbury's Insurance Recovery Law Team — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 21:43:02 +0000

Colleagues Joseph Jean and Meaghan Murphy recently authored a four-part series examining the myriad insurance considerations brought to the forefront by recent and ongoing events in Iran.

Part I – When Chokepoints Become Chokeholds
When trade routes detour, ports slow and sanctions tighten, the difference between a painful delay and an uninsured loss often comes down to a few lines of policy wording.

Part II – Business Interruption vs. the Supply Chain
Many BI and contingent BI disputes don’t turn on the headline event. They turn on the trigger: What, exactly, counts as a covered loss at a covered location caused by a covered peril.

Part III – Political Risk, Political Violence and the Sanctions Tripwire
Some losses don’t look like “property damage” at all. They look like government action, loss of control, blocked payments or a legal inability to perform. That’s where PRI/political violence wording—and sanctions clauses—do the heavy lifting.

Part IV – War Risks, Detention and the Courts
War-risk losses are rarely “mysteries.” They’re usually fights about ordinary words—“detainment,” “loss,” “costs,” “restraint,” “constructive total loss”—and about which section of a program pays when war is in the causal chain.

Pillsbury is helping clients navigate the shifting geopolitical, regulatory and economic landscape in Iran with informed insight and global perspective. Our experienced team of legal specialists, policy analysts, and former U.S. and UK government officials are actively monitoring the situation and providing integrated risk and response advice in connection with the immediate and long-term impacts of developments in the region.

The post Conflict Premium: Insurance and Supply Chains During the Iran War appeared first on Policyholder Pulse.

AI and Insurance Policy Interpretation After Snell v. United Specialty: What Policyholders Need to Know

Tamara D. Bruno and Shareen Sarwar — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 20:59:53 +0000

“I continue to believe—perhaps more so with each interaction—that LLMs have something to contribute to the ordinary-meaning endeavor. They’re not perfect, and challenges remain, but it would be myopic to ignore them.” —Judge Kevin Newsom

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Co. will be cited often for its holdings on policy interpretation and insurance applications under Alabama law. Perhaps the most groundbreaking analysis, likely to have long-term ramifications for insurance coverage litigation, was Judge Kevin Newsom’s concurring opinion addressing the role of AI large language models (LLMs) in policy interpretation. For the first time in a federal appellate decision, a judge openly explored whether ChatGPT, Bard/Gemini and similar AI tools could help courts interpret insurance policy language. His concurrence provides a roadmap for how AI may reshape insurance disputes, and where policyholders must tread carefully.

Montrose Chemical Tees Up “Sudden and Accidental” Pollution Exclusion: Will California Supreme Court Follow Through?

David F. Klein and Jeffrey W. Mikoni — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 18:37:40 +0000

We are on the cusp of another milestone in the decades-long Montrose Chemical litigation, which has already yielded many important precedents in California on coverage for so-called “long-tail” pollution liabilities. “Long-tail” claims arise under historical comprehensive general, umbrella and excess liability policies for alleged pollution that was in progress through multiple policy periods—such as underground tank leaks, seepages from waste disposal impoundments, and similar occurrences taking place over time. Whether the so-called “qualified pollution exclusion” bars coverage for such long-tail claims is a question that has divided courts for decades. Now the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear a critical appeal that puts the interpretation of the qualified pollution exclusion in play—with potentially seismic impacts.

When the Storm Hits the Grid: Insurance Response After Widespread Power Damage

Janine Stanisz — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 19:13:39 +0000

It is nearly five years since the winter storms caused blackouts across Texas, when over four million customers lost power as the ERCOT power grid nearly failed. And while the Texas grid weathered the most recent winter storm, what’s clear is that demand and weather conditions continue to put immense strain on the nation’s electric […]

The post When the Storm Hits the Grid: Insurance Response After Widespread Power Damage appeared first on Policyholder Pulse.

Doing Business in Venezuela: Political Risk Insurance Is a Critical First Step

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 22:35:32 +0000

The geopolitical drama unfolding with respect to Venezuela is loaded with opportunity and fraught with political risk arising from both Venezuelan and U.S. government actions. The country is still headed by a regime the U.S. government officially does not recognize, while a government that the United States does recognize stands on the outside seeking U.S. support to assume the reins. The President has stated that the U.S. has assumed “control” of Venezuela—and invites U.S. businesses to make massive investments on the ground—while the unrecognized Venezuelan government oscillates between official rejection and cooperation with U.S. political initiatives. Moreover, Venezuela has a history of expropriating assets, particularly in the oil and gas sector, and many state-owned companies have defaulted on significant payables to service companies that are essential participants in the efforts to rebuild and restore the Venezuelan infrastructure and economy.

Faced with such uncertainty, how might a U.S. business interested in making Venezuelan investments mitigate its risks? Political Risk Insurance is one way to help mitigate risk.

Jurisdiction Everywhere? Mallory’s Evolving Implications for Corporate Policyholders

Peter M. Gillon and Chris Popecki — Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:20:39 +0000

Insurance coverage disputes often begin with a battle over the appropriate forum for litigation. This can impact matters from the judge and jury who hear the case to the body of state law that governs the coverage issues. The U.S. Supreme Court may have given policyholders (and their opponents) more options in fighting this battle. […]

The post Jurisdiction Everywhere? Mallory’s Evolving Implications for Corporate Policyholders appeared first on Policyholder Pulse.

Digging Out from Under Winter Storm Fern: Key Insurance Considerations for Commercial Policyholders

Pillsbury's Insurance Recovery Law Team — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 17:25:50 +0000

Over the weekend of January 24-25, 2026, Winter Storm Fern struck a vast swathe of the Eastern United States and Canada. The storm is likely to have had—and for some days to come will continue to have—a vast impact on businesses, governments and a host of human activities. According to preliminary estimates, the economic impact may exceed $100 billion, involving physical property damage, business interruptions, government-ordered closures, power outages, widespread airline cancellations (including ripple effects beyond the weather-affected region), supply chain interruptions, and interruptions of business and governmental services. Burst pipes, roof collapses from snow load, ice dams, prolonged power outages and inaccessible facilities can all lead to significant property damage and business interruption.