Five Noteworthy 2025 Insurance Decisions Not Discussed in the Big Blogs

Welcome to my fifth annual survey of important decisions not reported in leading insurance blogs. These decisions may fly below the radar because they address procedural or interpretational issues which, while often the building blocks of a winning brief, aren’t click bait.  Here are my top five such decisions from 2025.

1. Not All Conduct Connected to “Professional “Services” Falls within the Professional Liability Coverage Part of Policy

EnviroAnalytics Grp. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., Civ. JKB-24-2970 (D. Md. Jul 03, 2025)

1.1 Issue: Underlying action sought damages arising from unnecessary dredging by the Insured engineering firm. Insured sought recovery under, among other things, the professional liability section of an insurance policy.

1.2 Noteworthy ruling: Professional liability coverage does not extend to every act or omission while services were being rendered, but rather must be confined to the Insured’s use of “’specialized knowledge, labor, or skill[s]’” associated with the engineering profession and “doing so in a ‘predominantly mental or intellectual' manner …”

1.3 Outcome: Court granted insurer’s motion to dismiss, holding that “professional services” coverage did not apply merely because the alleged error was “connected” to the professional work.

1.4 Quote: If the term “related” is not read in the context of the nature of the coverage, “… the policy would reach nonprofessional acts committed by nonprofessional employees, so long as there was some link, however tenuous, to engineering work. That view is at odds with an agreement designed to protect an insured in the exercise of learned professions and, indeed, with the very purpose of professional liability coverage.”

2. Meaning of “arising directly or indirectly out of” in Cyber Exclusion

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Galey Consulting, LLC, 2025 IL App (1st) 241909U, 1-24-1909 (Ill. App. Jul 28, 2025)

2.1 Issue: Insured’s account was hacked, allowing the hackers to send a series of emails that deceived the insured, causing it to wire the victim’s funds to a bank account controlled by the hackers.  Insurer denied coverage under an exclusion for “cyber events.”

2.2 Key ruling: Loss must be characterized as “arising directly or indirectly out of” an excluded “cyber event” even if there were other potential causes of loss.

2.3 Outcome: “Cyber events” exclusion negated any duty to defend.

2.4 Quote: The hacking of the Insured’s e-mail account and resulting efforts at wire fraud “… were the originating events that ultimately led to [the hacking victim’s] funds being sent to a bank account not owned by NES. These were the events from which all other causes of the loss flowed. … In other words, none of the other allegedly negligent or wrongful acts by [the insured] would have resulted in the diversion of Monroe's funds if the e-mail hacking and wire fraud incident had not occurred.”

3. Meaning of “Customarily Occupied”in Homeowners Policy

Kushner v. Farmers of Salem, A-0570-24 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Oct 31, 2025)

3.1 Issue: Homeowners policy provided: "'Unless otherwise agreed to in this policy by us, it is understood that the covered dwelling is owned and customarily occupied by you and this is the condition of hazard and use that we undertake to insure under this policy ..." The dwelling, however, was undergoing renovations and not lived in at the time of the fire.

3.2 Key ruling: The term “customarily” means “usually, habitually, according to custom; general practice or usual order of things; regularly.”

3.3 Outcome: Summary judgment awarded in favor of insurer.

3.4 Quote: “Given the plain meaning of these common terms, we conclude the court correctly found that to customarily occupy the house meant actually commencing residence and living in it. Such interpretation did not require the residents to be physically present at the time of the loss or necessitate they remain there continuously without interruption, but it did require their regular, habitual use of the property for its intended purpose - to dwell within its walls.”

4. Late Notice Defense not Waived Where it was Justifiably Omitted from Denial Letter

 Pierce v. Nat’l Specialty Ins. Co., 24-12109 (11th Cir. Apr 02, 2025)

4.1 Issue: Policyholders misreported to insurer the date of the loss, which actually had occurred seven months prior to the reported date.  Relying upon the reported date, the insurer did not assert untimely notice in its denial letter.

4.2 Noteworthy ruling: Though its denial letter did not assert untimely notice, insurer did not waive right to deny coverage on that ground, given that the insureds had misinformed it (in a sworn proof of loss) that the subject pipe burst had occurred the same day they gave notice.

4.3 Outcome: Court upheld the insurer’s denial of coverage.

4.4 Quote: The insurer “cannot be faulted for failing to deny the Pierces' claim for prompt notice when the Pierces were claiming a date seven months later as the date of loss.”

5. “Eight Corners” Approach Requires Evidence of the “Corners” for a Duty to Defend to Arise

Int’l Paper Co. v. Medmarc Cas. Ins. Co., 2:23-cv-02299-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Nov 10, 2025)

5.1 Issue: Plaintiff sought indemnity under alleged contract, which could not be located (and may not have existed)

5.2 Noteworthy ruling: Where the indemnitee alleged defendant has indemnified it, but no one could produce a copy of the contract, court could not find a duty to defend on the alleged indemnitor’s part.

5.3 Outcome: Defendant owed no duty to defend plaintiff.

5.4 Quote: “Here … there are not even eight corners to examine.”