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.
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.
“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.
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.
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 grid.
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.
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.
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.
Companies in certain industries have years and even decades of experience in defending and resolving “long-tail” liabilities for suits, claims and other proceedings—such as for asbestos-related disease or environmental-related third-party property damage—that involve bodily injuries or property damage spanning multiple years arising out of their historical operations.
The annual Pillsbury Insurance Policyholder Summit is once again approaching!
Taking place on October 28, this signature event will occur simultaneously in our New York, Houston and San Francisco offices, with live collaboration between locations.
The Summit brings together industry leaders and risk management professionals to explore today’s most pressing insurance challenges and opportunities. This year’s program will highlight emerging risks and evolving issues, including AI risk developments, trends in environmental liability and transactional risk insurance, construction coverage for data centers and infrastructure, and managing complex/mass tort claims.
For more information or to register, please contact Tricia Larade.
