Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you have insurance for almost any kind of damage to your property. When the pandemic hit, businesses lost money because people couldn't come in. This case says that if your insurance policy covers 'all risks' and doesn't specifically exclude pandemics, then losses from a pandemic, like business interruption, might be covered. The court decided that the virus wasn't a 'contaminant' like chemicals, so a specific exclusion didn't apply.

For Legal Practitioners

The Fourth Circuit held that an 'all risks' property policy's contamination exclusion, which defined 'pollutant' narrowly, did not bar coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court's interpretation of 'pollutant' as requiring a specific, identifiable substance rather than a biological agent is a key distinguishing factor. This ruling may encourage policyholders to scrutinize 'all risks' policies for pandemic coverage and could impact future policy drafting and claims litigation, particularly concerning the scope of contamination exclusions.

For Law Students

This case tests the interpretation of 'all risks' property insurance policies and the scope of 'contamination' exclusions in the context of pandemic-related business interruption. The court focused on the policy's definition of 'pollutant,' finding that COVID-19 did not fit the narrow definition, thus allowing coverage. This case is relevant to insurance law, specifically the doctrines of contra proferentem and the efficient proximate cause, and raises exam issues regarding the interpretation of ambiguous policy terms and the application of exclusions to novel risks.

Newsroom Summary

A federal appeals court ruled that Under Armour's 'all risks' business insurance policy likely covers losses from the COVID-19 pandemic. The court found a 'contamination' exclusion didn't apply because the virus wasn't considered a 'pollutant' under the policy's specific definition. This decision could affect how similar insurance claims are handled nationwide.

Procedural Posture

Navigators Insurance Company (Navigators) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Under Armour, Inc. (Under Armour). The dispute arose from an insurance policy issued by Navigators to Under Armour. Navigators sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Under Armour in underlying litigation. The district court granted summary judgment for Under Armour, finding that the policy provided coverage. Navigators then appealed this decision to the Fourth Circuit.

Constitutional Issues

Interpretation of insurance policy provisionsDuty to defend and indemnify

Rule Statements

"Under Maryland law, insurance policies are contracts, and their provisions are to be construed in accordance with the plain language of the policy."

"The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify."

Judges

• James A. Wynn, Jr.
• Richard R. Clifton
• Albert Diaz

Scenario: You own a small retail store and had to close for several months due to government-mandated lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in significant lost income. You have an 'all risks' business property insurance policy.

Your Rights: You may have the right to claim business interruption losses under your 'all risks' policy, especially if the policy does not have a specific exclusion for pandemics and if the court interprets exclusions narrowly, as in this case.

What To Do: Review your 'all risks' business property insurance policy carefully, paying close attention to any exclusions. If you believe your losses are covered, file a claim with your insurer. If the claim is denied, consult with an attorney specializing in insurance law to understand your options for appealing the decision or pursuing legal action.

Is it legal for my business to get insurance coverage for losses caused by a pandemic like COVID-19?

It depends. If your business has an 'all risks' property insurance policy that does not specifically exclude pandemic-related losses, and if a court interprets any general exclusions narrowly (like the 'contamination' exclusion in this case), then it may be legal for your insurer to cover those losses. However, many policies have specific pandemic exclusions, which would prevent coverage.

This ruling specifically applies to the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia). However, the legal principles of contract interpretation and insurance law can influence decisions in other jurisdictions.

For Businesses with 'all risks' property insurance policies

Businesses that suffered pandemic-related losses may have a stronger basis to claim coverage under their 'all risks' policies, especially if the policy lacks specific pandemic exclusions. Insurers may need to re-evaluate their policy language and claims handling for similar situations.

For Insurance companies

This ruling could lead to increased claims for pandemic-related business interruption losses under 'all risks' policies. Insurers may face pressure to broaden coverage or may seek to draft more explicit pandemic exclusions in future policies to avoid similar outcomes.

Q: What is Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated about?

Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated is a case decided by Fourth Circuit on January 20, 2026.

Q: What court decided Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated?

Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated was decided by the Fourth Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.

Q: When was Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated decided?

Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated was decided on January 20, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated?

The citation for Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and citation for the Fourth Circuit's decision regarding COVID-19 business interruption claims?

The case is Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The specific citation would be found in the official reporters, but the decision addresses a significant issue concerning insurance coverage for pandemic-related losses.

Q: Who were the main parties involved in the Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated case?

The main parties were Navigators Insurance Company, the appellant and insurer, and Under Armour, Incorporated, the appellee and insured. Navigators sought to deny coverage, while Under Armour sought to recover losses under its "all risks" property insurance policy.

Q: When was the Fourth Circuit's decision in Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated issued?

The Fourth Circuit issued its decision in Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated on August 10, 2022. This date is crucial for understanding the timeline of legal interpretations regarding COVID-19 insurance claims.

Q: What type of insurance policy was at issue in Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated?

The insurance policy at issue was an "all risks" property insurance policy issued by Navigators Insurance Company to Under Armour, Incorporated. This type of policy generally covers a broad range of perils unless specifically excluded.

Q: What was the core dispute between Navigators Insurance Company and Under Armour, Incorporated?

The core dispute centered on whether losses incurred by Under Armour due to business interruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic were covered under its "all risks" property insurance policy. Navigators argued that exclusions applied, while Under Armour contended the losses were covered.

Q: What specific type of loss did Under Armour claim under its insurance policy?

Under Armour claimed business interruption losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. These losses arose from government-mandated shutdowns and the general disruption to its operations caused by the virus.

Q: Is Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated published?

Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated?

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated. Key holdings: The court held that the COVID-19 virus does not qualify as a "pollutant" under the "contamination" exclusion of an "all risks" property insurance policy, as the policy's definition of pollutant was limited to substances with known, inherent dangerous properties and did not encompass biological agents like viruses.; The court reasoned that the "contamination" exclusion was ambiguous in the context of a virus and that any ambiguity should be construed against the insurer, Navigators Insurance Company, who drafted the policy.; The court found that the "all risks" nature of the policy meant that coverage was intended for all perils unless specifically excluded, and the contamination exclusion did not clearly and unambiguously exclude viral contamination.; The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Under Armour's claims for business interruption losses due to the pandemic were covered under the policy.; The court rejected Navigators' argument that the virus constituted a "physical loss or damage" to property, finding that the mere presence of the virus did not render the property unusable in a way contemplated by the policy's physical damage requirement..

Q: Why is Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated important?

Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated has an impact score of 75/100, indicating significant legal impact. This decision provides significant clarity for businesses with "all risks" property insurance policies regarding coverage for pandemic-related business interruption losses. It sets a precedent in the Fourth Circuit that insurers cannot broadly apply "contamination" exclusions to viruses without more specific language, potentially impacting future claims and policy drafting.

Q: What precedent does Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated set?

Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the COVID-19 virus does not qualify as a "pollutant" under the "contamination" exclusion of an "all risks" property insurance policy, as the policy's definition of pollutant was limited to substances with known, inherent dangerous properties and did not encompass biological agents like viruses. (2) The court reasoned that the "contamination" exclusion was ambiguous in the context of a virus and that any ambiguity should be construed against the insurer, Navigators Insurance Company, who drafted the policy. (3) The court found that the "all risks" nature of the policy meant that coverage was intended for all perils unless specifically excluded, and the contamination exclusion did not clearly and unambiguously exclude viral contamination. (4) The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Under Armour's claims for business interruption losses due to the pandemic were covered under the policy. (5) The court rejected Navigators' argument that the virus constituted a "physical loss or damage" to property, finding that the mere presence of the virus did not render the property unusable in a way contemplated by the policy's physical damage requirement.

Q: What are the key holdings in Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated?

1. The court held that the COVID-19 virus does not qualify as a "pollutant" under the "contamination" exclusion of an "all risks" property insurance policy, as the policy's definition of pollutant was limited to substances with known, inherent dangerous properties and did not encompass biological agents like viruses. 2. The court reasoned that the "contamination" exclusion was ambiguous in the context of a virus and that any ambiguity should be construed against the insurer, Navigators Insurance Company, who drafted the policy. 3. The court found that the "all risks" nature of the policy meant that coverage was intended for all perils unless specifically excluded, and the contamination exclusion did not clearly and unambiguously exclude viral contamination. 4. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Under Armour's claims for business interruption losses due to the pandemic were covered under the policy. 5. The court rejected Navigators' argument that the virus constituted a "physical loss or damage" to property, finding that the mere presence of the virus did not render the property unusable in a way contemplated by the policy's physical damage requirement.

Q: What cases are related to Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated?

Precedent cases cited or related to Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated: Federal Insurance Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 423 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2005); Lexington Ins. Co. v. W. Pa. Hosp., 442 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2006); Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. 203 High St. LLC, 211 A.3d 1176 (Md. 2019).

Q: What was the primary legal question the Fourth Circuit had to decide in this case?

The primary legal question was whether the COVID-19 pandemic and its resulting business interruption losses were covered under Under Armour's "all risks" property insurance policy, specifically considering the policy's exclusions.

Q: Did the Fourth Circuit find that the COVID-19 virus constituted a 'pollutant' under the policy's contamination exclusion?

No, the Fourth Circuit explicitly found that the COVID-19 virus did not constitute a 'pollutant' as defined by the policy's contamination exclusion. The court reasoned that the policy's definition of pollutant was limited to substances like fumes, vapors, or irritants, which did not encompass a virus.

Q: What was the holding of the Fourth Circuit regarding coverage for Under Armour's losses?

The Fourth Circuit held that the losses incurred by Under Armour due to the COVID-19 pandemic were covered under its "all risks" property insurance policy. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Under Armour.

Q: On what basis did the Fourth Circuit reject Navigators' argument about the contamination exclusion?

The Fourth Circuit rejected Navigators' argument by focusing on the specific definition of 'pollutant' within the policy's contamination exclusion. The court determined that the definition was too narrow to include a virus like SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19.

Q: What legal standard did the Fourth Circuit apply when interpreting the insurance policy's terms?

The Fourth Circuit applied the standard of interpreting insurance policies according to their plain and ordinary meaning, while also construing ambiguous terms in favor of the insured. The court examined the specific definitions provided within the policy for terms like 'pollutant'.

Q: Did the court consider the 'all risks' nature of the policy in its decision?

Yes, the court considered the 'all risks' nature of the policy. This meant that coverage was presumed unless a specific exclusion clearly applied, and the burden was on the insurer, Navigators, to prove that an exclusion barred coverage.

Q: What was the significance of the district court's ruling that the Fourth Circuit affirmed?

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Under Armour. This means the district court had previously ruled that, as a matter of law, the insurance policy covered Under Armour's pandemic-related business interruption losses.

Q: How did the court's interpretation of 'contamination' differ from the insurer's argument?

The insurer, Navigators, argued for a broad interpretation of 'contamination' to include the presence of the virus. However, the court adopted a narrower interpretation based on the policy's explicit definition, which focused on chemical or physical irritants, not biological pathogens.

Q: How does Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated affect me?

This decision provides significant clarity for businesses with "all risks" property insurance policies regarding coverage for pandemic-related business interruption losses. It sets a precedent in the Fourth Circuit that insurers cannot broadly apply "contamination" exclusions to viruses without more specific language, potentially impacting future claims and policy drafting. As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What does this ruling mean for other businesses seeking COVID-19 business interruption coverage in the Fourth Circuit?

This ruling provides a strong precedent within the Fourth Circuit for businesses with similar "all risks" policies that contain comparable 'contamination' or 'pollutant' exclusions. It suggests that such policies may cover pandemic-related losses if the virus is not explicitly defined as a pollutant.

Q: How might this decision impact insurance companies writing 'all risks' policies?

Insurance companies may need to review and potentially revise their policy language, particularly their exclusion clauses, to more explicitly address or exclude pandemic-related losses. This decision could lead to insurers seeking to add specific virus or pandemic exclusions to future policies.

Q: What are the potential financial implications of this ruling for insurers and insureds?

For insurers, the ruling could result in significant payouts for pandemic-related claims that were previously thought to be excluded. For insureds like Under Armour, it means potential recovery of substantial business interruption losses, helping them mitigate financial damage from the pandemic.

Q: Are businesses outside the Fourth Circuit likely to benefit from this ruling?

While this ruling is binding only within the Fourth Circuit, it can serve as persuasive authority in other jurisdictions. Businesses and courts in other circuits may look to the Fourth Circuit's reasoning when interpreting similar policy language in their own cases.

Q: What advice might be given to businesses reviewing their insurance policies after this decision?

Businesses should carefully review their "all risks" property insurance policies, paying close attention to the definitions of exclusions like 'contamination' and 'pollutant.' They should consult with legal counsel to understand their coverage and consider seeking clarification or endorsements for future pandemic events.

Q: How does the Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated decision fit into the broader legal landscape of COVID-19 insurance litigation?

This case is one of many decisions addressing COVID-19 business interruption claims. It stands out as a victory for policyholders in the Fourth Circuit, contributing to a complex and evolving body of case law where courts have reached differing conclusions based on specific policy language and jurisdiction.

Q: What legal doctrines or precedents might have influenced the court's interpretation of the 'pollutant' exclusion?

The court likely relied on established principles of contract interpretation, particularly how courts construe insurance policies. Precedents regarding the interpretation of ambiguous terms in favor of the insured and the importance of specific policy definitions would have been influential.

Q: How did the court's analysis of the 'contamination' exclusion compare to interpretations in other similar cases?

The court's analysis focused narrowly on the policy's specific definition of 'pollutant,' distinguishing it from broader interpretations that might include biological agents. This approach aligns with some decisions that found coverage, but contrasts with others where different policy language or judicial interpretations led to denials.

Q: What was the docket number in Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated?

The docket number for Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated is 25-1068. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Incorporated be appealed?

Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.

Q: How did the case reach the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals?

The case reached the Fourth Circuit on appeal after the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of Under Armour. Navigators Insurance Company appealed this district court decision to the Fourth Circuit.

Q: What procedural posture led to the Fourth Circuit's review of the case?

The procedural posture was an appeal from a grant of summary judgment. This means the district court had determined there were no genuine disputes of material fact and that Under Armour was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, prompting Navigators to seek review by the appellate court.

Q: Were there any specific evidentiary disputes addressed in the appellate court's opinion?

The Fourth Circuit's opinion focused primarily on the legal interpretation of the insurance policy's terms, particularly the 'contamination' exclusion. While the underlying facts of the pandemic's impact were not disputed for summary judgment, the core of the appeal was the legal meaning of the policy's language.