Original explainer
A duty to defend is not a promise to pay the judgment
Insurance disputes contain several different decisions. Understanding which one a court made changes the meaning of the news.
Browse the Review
Insurance
Track the duty to defend, indemnity, exclusions and the procedural decisions that shape coverage disputes.
8 resources
Case analysis
Pennsylvania rejects a blanket insurance bar for trafficking allegations
The state Supreme Court’s Samsung decision separates public policy from the policy language that determines coverage.
Decision:
Case source
Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. RI Settlement Trust
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court rejected a categorical public-policy bar to defense or indemnity for allegations of enabling or profiting from sex trafficking. Policy-specific coverage remained a separate question.
Decision date:
Case source
Northfield Insurance Co. v. North Brook Industries, Inc.
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the insurer’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It did not decide the policy-coverage merits.
Decision date:
Case source
Nautilus Insurance Co. v. Motel Management Services Inc.
The policy excluded claims arising out of assault or battery, including related failure-to-prevent or inadequate-security allegations. Applying Pennsylvania’s complaint-and-policy four-corners rule, with but-for causation undisputed, the court held that the specific allegations triggered the exclusion. The District Courts entered judgment on the pleadings for Nautilus, and the Third Circuit affirmed: no duty to defend and therefore no duty to indemnify. That coverage ruling does not establish the hotel’s liability or any payment; the disposition is not precedential and is not an opinion of the full court.
Decision date:
Case source
Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Co. v. Khamlai Lodging, LLC
The court applied Georgia law and the policy’s own definitions of assault and battery. Although the exclusion uses broad causal language, the court held only that Mesa had not shown at the Rule 12(c) stage that every possible set of facts alleged in the amended Tort Action fell within the exclusion. It denied Mesa’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Claimants’ hearing motion as moot; it did not decide separately whether Mesa owed a duty to defend or indemnify, and the defense described in the opinion was under a reservation of rights. The opinion does not establish that Mesa paid any judgment or that any insured was liable.
Decision date:
Case source
Northfield Insurance Co. v. Northbrook Industries, Inc.
The holding is a duty to defend, not a ruling on ultimate coverage or indemnity. On the allegations at this pleading stage, both bodily-injury and false-imprisonment coverage were potentially implicated, and neither the abuse-or-molestation exclusion nor the assault-or-battery endorsement was shown to defeat or limit the defense. Indemnity was left undecided as unripe and stayed until the underlying case is resolved. The source is a Northern District of Georgia district-court order dated September 16, 2024; the supplied opinion does not show later treatment or establish any misclassification.
Decision date:
Case source
J.G. v. Northfield Insurance Co.
This is an unpublished per curiam decision about intervention, not a coverage holding. The Eleventh Circuit held Northfield’s intervention motion untimely and dismissed its appeal for want of jurisdiction; it did not decide the policy’s bodily-injury or false-imprisonment terms, the ultimate duty to defend, or indemnity. The duty-to-defend and unripe-indemnity conclusions described in the opinion were the district court’s rulings in the separate Coverage Lawsuit, and the opinion states that Northfield could continue litigating coverage there.
Decision date: