Articles

Actual Controversy Without Actual Exhaustion: California Supreme Court Allows Declaratory Relief and Bad Faith Claims Against Excess Insurers

California courts were previously split on the issue of whether an insured may bring declaratory relief claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance. Some California courts held that the actual exhaustion of underlying insurance was necessary, whereas other courts allowed for these types of claims to proceed.[1] Recently, the California Supreme […]
Learn More

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Coverage for Water Damage Arising from Alleged Construction Defects

In Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Ropicky, 2026 WI 25 (2026), the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed whether a homeowner could recover for water damage that entered through an alleged construction defect. The decision is favorable to policyholders because it confirms that, in Wisconsin, a construction defect exclusion does not automatically bar coverage for resulting water damage. […]
Learn More

Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy

I.  Course of Construction Exclusions  Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage […]
Learn More

New Jersey Supreme Court Reinforces the Importance of Timely Reservation of Rights

New Jersey has long recognized that an insurer seeking to preserve defenses to coverage must properly notify its insurer through a reservation of rights. Once the insurer receives knowledge of a potential basis for denying the claim, they must promptly inform the insured of a potential disclaimer.[1] An insurer that fails to do so within […]
Learn More

The Grenfell & Champlain Towers: Risk Management Considerations in the Wake of Catastrophic Loss — A UK/US Comparison

1. Introduction As part of the multinational collaborative relationship between Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Fenchurch Law, we continually find ourselves in conversations about the sometimes subtle but sometimes drastic differences between risk management and coverage considerations from one country to the next. These differences are often highlighted by the fallout from large catastrophic […]
Learn More

Beyond Privacy and Regulation: The Insurance Coverage Questions Raised by Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence has rapidly become embedded in everyday business operations. Companies now deploy AI tools to interact with customers, generate reports, assist employees, and automate decision-making across a wide range of industries. Much of the legal commentary surrounding artificial intelligence has focused on issues such as data privacy, intellectual property, and regulatory oversight. However, an equally important—and largely […]
Learn More

The Seventh Circuit Rejects Navigators Insurance Company’s Attempt to Escape Additional Insured Coverage For a Gas Explosion

In a recent Seventh Circuit decision, Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Navigators Insurance Company, the court addressed a theme that policyholders are often confronted with by insurers[1] – insurers disputing additional insured coverage where the named insured is not named in the underlying action. The court aptly rejected this position since it was undisputed that […]
Learn More

IRMI Expert Commentary: NY Highest Court Confronts Downstream Risk Transfer for Subcontractor Bodily Injury Claims

Originally published on IRMI.com, copyright 2026 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. Subcontractor employee bodily injury claims (so-called action over claims) are a staple of construction risk management in the Empire State—so much so that the phrase “labor law” instinctively invites a shudder among the most experienced general contractors. The savvy among them intensely monitor case […]
Learn More

CT Supreme Court Addresses “Make Whole Doctrine” and Ripeness Question

In Connecticut, the “make whole doctrine” enables an insured to have priority for money recovered from a tortfeasor over an insurer’s right to the same source of money, where the amount paid by the insurer is insufficient to fully compensate its insured for the loss suffered.  Hence, by law (absent a contractual agreement stating otherwise), […]
Learn More