INSURANCE-RELATED COURT CASES
Digested from case reports published online
COURT DECISIONS
Extreme notification moots coverage
A young woman (to be referred to as A.B.) suffered sexual exploitation in 2013 when she was 10 years old. She identified the exploiting parties as her mother and David Barrow (Barrow). A.B. sued Barrow in 2018, alleging invasion of privacy. Years later (2022), after the result of a bench trial, she was awarded $10 million in damages ($6 million, punitive plus $4 million, compensatory).
Also in 2018, A.B. filed a second, separate lawsuit against Barrow and his spouse. The lawsuit sought copies of all insurance policies that were held by Barrow that were in force at the time that the exploitation of A.B. occurred. Justification for the request was found under the state’s Fraudulent Transfer Act. In compliance with the request, A.B.’s attorney was advised by one of the defendants that policies from Nationwide Insurance Company may have been in force. Nationwide, after service of a subpoena, provided copies of policy information in 2019.
Besides sharing policy information, response to the subpoena also provided notice to Nationwide of the invasion of privacy lawsuit against Barrow. This was relevant as, due to the existence of a personal umbrella policy that Nationwide had issued to Barrow, the insurer also arranged for their policyholder’s legal representation. This arrangement continued until the determination of the $10 million award in 2022. The insurer then pivoted.
A.B., after failing to receive payment of the lower court award, sued Nationwide. The insurer filed for summary judgment in a district court, seeking a decision that, due to the late notification of the loss, it was not obligated to make payment. The district court ruled in its favor and A.B. appealed.
The higher court addressed three issues it identified as relevant. First, who had authority to give notice of the loss; second, was the notification made in a timely manner and third, did the district make a proper decision.
Regarding loss notification, the court recognized that Nationwide’s umbrella policy language authorized notice from “You” or from someone on “your” behalf. Further, the policy mandated that the insurer was to be supplied with all legal documents related to the applicable loss.
The policy traditionally defined you (and your) as the entity appearing on the policy declarations as the first named insured. Invasion of privacy fell under the policy’s definition of “occurrence.” Finally, the policy also required that Barrow (first named insured) or someone on his behalf must give written notice to Nationwide as soon as reasonably possible.
Nationwide’s argument was that A.B.’s attorney did not have the same status as Barrow or Barrow’s insurance agent, so the loss notice was unauthorized. The court reasoned that a party acting in an insured’s best interest qualifies as acting on the insured’s behalf, particularly as A.B.’s attorney was seeking coverage under the umbrella policy. Securing coverage was a shared objective of both A.B. and Barrow.
The court then gave its attention to the timeliness of the loss notification. Nationwide states that notice did not occur until 58 months had passed. The court examined a couple of cases it found relevant and also considered the question of notification from the position of the insured, an entity acting on the insured’s behalf as well as the claimant. No matter what view was considered, no explanations existed that prevented an interested party from providing timely notification.
The court then addressed A.B.’s argument that the district court reached its decision in favor of Nationwide due to being influenced by criminal conduct found in Barrow’s background information. The court found no evidence that the lower court did anything other than consider the obligations existing under the policy’s Loss Notice Provision. In light of its findings, the higher court ruled to affirm the lower court decision in favor of Nationwide.
A.B., a minor, by and through her next friend and parent, J.B. v. David Jacobs Barrow, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company—U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit—No. 24-13138—January 7, 2026.
