The difficulty of relatedness determinations is a recurring topic on this site. The difficulty is in determining what degree of similarity between two claims is sufficient to make them “related” for purposes of insurance coverage determinations. In the following guest post, Lucas Roberts, Wholesale Broker, Anzen Insurance Solutions, considers two recent specific cases to highlight the difficulty of reconciling relatedness cases. I would like to thank Lucas for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Lucas’s article.
************************
Did you ever use a daisy oracle as a child to figure out if a love interest liked you? You’d grab a daisy and start plucking at the petals, chanting wishfully, “She loves me, she loves me not. She loves me, she loves me not.” By appealing to the randomness of daisy-petal-plucking, one could supposedly learn if their crush shared similar feelings.
Of course there’s no logical reason that anyone could discern such a thing by appealing to the randomness of the order in which one plucks daisy petals. But sometimes I feel like using daisy oracles might give you a better chance of predicting when a court will decide that different claims fall under the definition of “related claims” than analyzing case law and policy language.
Two recent cases demonstrate this unpredictability perfectly. In both, courts considered carriers’ insistence that similar claims were in fact related, and therefore not covered under current policies. The courts came to wildly different conclusions, something that will surely shock none of the loyal readers to The D&O Diary.
The Persistence of the Related Claims Conundrum
Before examining these cases, it’s worth noting the extensive commentary this issue has already received. As Kevin LaCroix of this blog has observed, “one of the most vexing issues in the D&O claims arena is the questions of whether or not two claims are or are not interrelated. If the two are interrelated, they are deemed a single claim for purposes of determining the claims made date. The outcome of this analysis often can mean the difference between the availability of coverage and non-coverage for one or both of the claims.”
Mr. LaCroix has further noted that “Whether or not two or more claims are interrelated within the meaning of a D&O insurance policy is a recurring issue. The outcome of interrelatedness disputes often reflects the specific facts involved and the relevant policy language.” He warns that “neither insurers nor policyholders always want the same thing from a relatedness determination… This variability of interests is yet another reason why the interrelatedness decisions are so hard to map, as different players take different positions in different cases, depending on their interests in a particular case.”
Even legal precedent doesn’t seem to provide guidance anymore, as Delaware courts have moved away from applying a “fundamentally identical” standard, with one court declining to apply that test because it was not “grounded in the policy’s’ language.”
In his groundbreaking book, “Claims-Made Insurance – The Policy That Changed The Industry: A Deep Dive, Review, and History,” Frederick Fisher documented 32 cases where denials were upheld in court due to related claims exclusions. Fisher’s research underscores how the unclear and ambiguous nature of related claims provisions can leave insureds without coverage when they most need it.
Case Study One: Claims Found NOT Related
In Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Avertest, LLC, decided by the Eastern District of Virginia in July 2025, the court ruled that two strikingly similar claims were not related, favoring the insured.
Averhealth operates a laboratory that conducts drug testing of biological samples. In 2021, the company faced a lawsuit (Gonzalez) alleging that it prioritized speed over accuracy in its testing procedures, resulting in false positives that caused plaintiffs to lose custody or visitation rights with their children. Columbia Casualty covered Averhealth’s defense costs and the eventual settlement.
In 2022, during a new policy period with Navigators Specialty, Averhealth faced another lawsuit (Foulger) with remarkably similar allegations. Eight new plaintiffs, represented by the same lawyers who had filed the Gonzalez complaint, sued Averhealth in the same federal district, alleging the same core misconduct: prioritizing speed over accuracy and using improper testing methods.
The similarities were striking. Both complaints
- alleged the same general root causes for the same types of injuries: Averhealth’s alleged dedication to speed over accuracy, and use of improper analysis of samples by using ‘calibration curves’ that relied on historical data rather than current data;
- alleged similar results: false positives leading others to believe that the plaintiffs had used various controlled substances including amphetamine, methamphetamine, benzoylecgonine, and cocaine;
- alleged the same type of consequences: frustrating parents’ efforts to spend time with their children;
- were brought by six of the same lawyers and the same four law firms;
- and relied on similar background facts and allegations.
Despite these similarities, the court found the claims were not related. The court applied the test of whether the two lawsuits “have a common nexus of facts and arose out of the same occurrence of wrongful acts.” Ultimately, the court concluded that “the allegations in the Gonzalez and Foulger lawsuits are not sufficiently similar to constitute related claims under the Navigators and Columbia Policies. As in AWP USA, the factual similarities outlined above describe ‘general business practices,’ not ‘the same underlying facts’ or transactions.”
The court emphasized that while there were “general similarities,” the complaints alleged “plaintiff-specific situations that include several other alleged violations by Averhealth, any combination of which could have caused plaintiffs’ injuries.”
Case Study Two: Claims Found Related
Unfortunately for the insured in Boyne USA, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company, decided by the District of Montana in August 2025, a different court reached the opposite conclusion on arguably less similar facts.
Boyne USA manages resort properties and was sued in Montana in 2021 by property owners alleging unfair business practices. The plaintiffs claimed Boyne required them to use Boyne exclusively as their rental manager and sign non-negotiable agreements that Boyne could unilaterally modify. The lawsuit included claims for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, breach of contract, and other violations.
Three years later, in 2024, Boyne faced a similar lawsuit in Michigan involving different properties and different plaintiffs, but based on substantially the same rental management program allegations.
The court found these claims were related under the policy’s definition: “Related Claims means all Claims for Wrongful Acts based upon, arising from, or in consequence of the same or related facts, circumstances, situations, transactions or events or the same or related series of facts, circumstances, situations, transactions or events.”
In applying this provision, the court emphasized that “the relevant inquiry is whether there is a ‘single course of conduct’ that serves as the basis for the various causes of action.” This represented a much lower threshold than the “common nexus” test applied in the Avertest case.
The court concluded that “the Montana and Michigan actions are ‘Related Claims’ because they assert causes of action against Boyne based on the same general business practice and course of conduct. Although the suits are brought by different plaintiffs, in different forums, and concern different Boyne properties, Boyne’s mandatory rental management program is at the center of both lawsuits.”
The court emphasized that “claims can be related even if the suits are ‘filed by two different sets of plaintiffs in two different fora under two different legal theories,’ as long as the ‘common basis for those suits’ is the same.”
The Troubling Implications: One Strike and You’re Out
These contrasting decisions reveal a troubling trend toward what can only be described as “one strike and you’re out” coverage. The Boyne decision demonstrates how carriers can use broad “related claims” language to relegate entire categories of exposure to a single policy period, effectively eliminating ongoing coverage for similar future claims.
This has profound implications for risk management and insurance purchasing decisions. How many clients are purchasing renewal policies with the understanding that whatever exposure was triggered by a previous claim no longer has active coverage? How many agents and brokers understand that any exposures related to a prior “single course of conduct” may never be considered for coverage again?
The Boyne court relied heavily on legal precedent establishing that courts should focus on whether there is a “single course of conduct” underlying various claims. But this approach creates a standard so broad that virtually any systematic business practice could trigger the related claims provision, essentially converting claims-made policies into occurrence-based coverage with a single, exhaustible limit.
The Need for Industry Reform
While the Averhealth court opted to apply a more restrictive “common nexus of facts” test rather than strictly following the policy’s broad definition, the Boyne decision suggests courts are increasingly willing to apply expansive related claims provisions as written. This trend, combined with the inherent unpredictability in judicial interpretation, creates an untenable situation for insureds and the industry.
As Mr. LaCroix has observed, “There is always the next case” when it comes to related claims determinations. But the growing trend toward expansive interpretations of related claims provisions threatens to undermine the fundamental value proposition of claims-made coverage.
The industry needs clearer, more predictable standards for related claims determinations. Agents and brokers must better understand and communicate the implications of broad related claims language to their clients. Most importantly, carriers should consider whether their current approach to related claims provisions truly serves the long-term interests of the claims-made insurance market.
Until then, predicting related claims outcomes may indeed be no more reliable than plucking daisy petals, and far less romantic.
This analysis is provided for educational purposes only. For specific insurance coverage questions, consult with competent coverage counsel.