
Insurance practitioners know that policy language matters. Insurance coverage advocates are also well aware that the application of the canons of construction can significantly affect contested coverage matters. These two considerations came together in a recent Fifth Circuit opinion, in which the placement of a single word — the word “the” — proved to be outcome determinative. The appellate court’s decision so clearly presents these fundamental policy interpretation issues, it should be mandatory reading for anyone involved in insurance policy wording issues. A copy of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion can be found here. A July 10, 2025 LinkedIn post about the decision by Geoffrey Fehling of the Hunton Andrews Kurth law firm can be found here.Continue Reading Does the Word “The” Change an Exclusion’s Meaning?






Regular readers of this blog know that among my
The insured vs. insured exclusion is a standard exclusion in most management liability insurance policies. The exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by one insured against another. The IvI exclusions in most management liability insurance policies typically include a number of exceptions to the exclusion preserving coverage for claims that otherwise would be excluded. In a recent decision, a Texas intermediate appellate court found that the IvI exclusion in an investment management firm’s policy did not preclude coverage for an arbitration award because the underlying dispute arose out of an employment practices claim and therefore the dispute – including even the derivative claims the claimant asserted in the arbitration – came within the exclusion’s coverage carve-back for wrongful employment practices claims. As discussed below, the court’s opinion has a number of interesting features.
When the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in its