(Article from Insurance Law Alert, October 2025)
For more information, please visit the Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.
Joshua Polster, Andrew Marrero and Abigail Grise authored an article, “Application of New York General Business Law §349 in the Context of Recent Insurance Coverage Litigation,” which was published in the New York Law Journal Insurance Law Special Report. The article addresses how certain New York courts have recently allowed New York General Business Law Section 349 unfair trade practice claims against insurers to survive motions to dismiss, and the implications for attorneys litigating New York insurance coverage disputes. To read the full article, please click here (subscription required).
Summer Craig authored the United States chapter in the eighth edition of Lexology In Depth: Insurance Disputes. The chapter explores recent significant insurance-related developments in U.S. courts, including the definition of damages in general liability insurance policies, exhaustion of primary and excess coverage, “bump-up” exclusions in D&O policies, and coverage disputes over COVID-19 business losses. It also provides in-depth analysis of cutting-edge issues—from AI-related claims handling and PFAS “forever chemicals” to climate change litigation and mass tort bankruptcies—offering readers strategic insights into the future of insurance disputes in the U.S.
Lynn Neuner spoke at the Practicing Law Institute’s (PLI) Trial by Jury 2025 program on October 16 in New York. Speaking on the “Choosing the Best Possible Jury” panel, Lynn joined other industry professionals in a discussion of techniques in choosing an effective jury. PLI’s Trial by Jury program brings together the most experienced and respected state and federal judges, as well as distinguished litigators, to give their perspectives and insights on jury trials.
Joshua Polster, Matthew Penny and Kate Rogers authored an article, “Policyholders Cannot Use Settlements With Claimants to Manufacture Insurance Coverage for Uncovered Claims,” which was published by Delaware Business Court Insider. The article discusses a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision which rejected a policyholder argument that a settlement agreement can be a “transformative document” and instead held that settlement agreements may not be reliable “coverage indicators” because they are subject to “manipulation” by policyholders and plaintiffs. To read the full article, please click here.