Every federal healthcare fraud case turns on proving that a defendant knowingly submitted false or misleading claims — but what happens when the fraud allegation hinges on billing rules that reasonable people could interpret differently? Most fraud prosecutions involve conduct everyone recognizes as deceptive: fake invoices, fictitious companies, forged documents, or money taken for services that were never provided. United States v. Elfenbein, 144 F.4th 551 (4th Cir. 2025), presented a harder version of a federal healthcare fraud case — one built entirely on the meaning of complex medical billing rules.

The Fourth Circuit recently issued an important Fourth Amendment traffic stop decision addressing a familiar scenario: an officer stops a vehicle for one reason but quickly begins investigating something else. This Fourth Amendment traffic stop ruling has significant implications for how far law enforcement can stray from the original reason for a stop.

For years, lawyers have warned clients to assume that every email, text message, Slack message, and internal memorandum could someday become an exhibit in litigation. Increasingly, courts and litigants are confronting a related question: is AI chat history in litigation treated the same way? As AI chat history in litigation becomes a growing focus for courts, businesses should assume that conversations with tools like ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, and Gemini belong on that same list.

The Fourth Circuit issued an important sentencing decision today for federal firearms cases. In United States v. Smith, No. 25-4065 (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2026), the court held that the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) does not apply merely because one or more serial-number markings on a firearm have been rendered illegible. The question is whether the firearm itself remains traceable. That distinction can have a substantial effect on a defendant’s Guidelines range.

California has redrawn the excess insurer exhaustion rule. In Fox Paine & Company, LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company (July 27, 2026), the California Supreme Court held that an insured no longer needs to allege that all underlying insurance has been exhausted before pursuing declaratory relief or bad faith claims against higher-layer excess insurers. For anyone navigating layered insurance programs, this decision changes the game.

Does a single occurrence insurance policy cover claims from multiple victims, or does each victim trigger a separate claim? That question sits at the heart of the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., decided July 28, 2026 — a ruling that matters for any entity facing mass-tort or abuse-related exposure, and for how courts interpret ambiguous policy language.

The Sixth Circuit occurrence ruling in J.M. Smucker Co. v. ACE American Insurance Co. answers a deceptively simple question with an outsized price tag: when does a single manufacturing problem count as one insurance claim rather than hundreds? On July 1, 2026, the court sided with Smucker — and the difference was worth more than $112 million.

On June 1, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a significant ruling in Westchester Fire Insurance Company v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange, Case No. 8:24-cv-01539-MRA-ADS, granting partial summary judgment in favor of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange (“RCBO”) on the question of whether its umbrella insurer owes a primary duty to defend more than two hundred sexual abuse lawsuits brought under the California Child Victims Act (“CCVA”).

If you’re navigating social inflation corporate policyholder liability risks, here’s a trend you can’t afford to ignore: social inflation — the tendency of insurance claim costs to rise far beyond what general economic inflation can explain. This isn’t a niche underwriting concern. It reflects a fundamental shift in how society views corporate liability, and it’s reshaping coverage disputes, underwriting strategies, and the economics of risk transfer across virtually every casualty line.

In early March 2026, I posted an article encouraging corporate policyholders to ask their brokers whether they utilize AI insurance broker tools for corporate policyholders — platforms designed to secure lower premiums, identify and resolve coverage gaps, and run claims simulations. I care about this issue because, as a corporate policyholder attorney, I too often discover that a policyholder does not have the right coverage or enough of the right coverage.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) dominate the American diet, comprising 50–60% of daily calories for many consumers. Defined by the NOVA food classification system as industrially formulated products made from extracted substances, additives, and minimal whole foods – such as sodas, packaged snacks, reconstituted meats, and flavored yogurts – UPFs are engineered for hyper-palatability, shelf stability, and overconsumption.

On March 16, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14395 creating the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud within the Executive Office of the President. The Order, published in the Federal Register on March 19, directs a White House-led effort to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in federal benefit programs, including programs involving medical care. For healthcare providers and nonprofits, that makes this more than a political announcement – it is an enforcement signal.

Business “disasters” can take many forms: A product recall, a product liability claim, a cyberattack, a phishing scam, a pandemic that shuts down your business, a professional negligence claim, a shareholder lawsuit.

Businesses using generative AI should take note of new changes coming in 2026: the Insurance Services Office (ISO) has introduced two new optional endorsements—CG 40 47 and CG 40 48—that create generative AI insurance exclusions under commercial general liability (CGL) policies. These exclusions allow insurers to deny coverage for claims tied to generative AI outputs, signaling a major shift in how liability policies treat emerging AI-related risks.

To ensure your company is buying the right coverage. Most companies assume hiring an insurance broker guarantees they are buying the right types of coverage. That is the broker’s job, isn’t it? Brokers are an essential partner when procuring commercial insurance, but they are not infallible.

When a loved one passes away, probate can bring unexpected challenges for surviving spouses. South Carolina law provides important protections to ensure that surviving spouses are not left without support. The elective share petition and the omitted spouse petition are two key statutory remedies that serve to safeguard the rights of surviving spouses in probate proceedings. While similar in purpose, they apply in very different circumstances. Understanding the difference can help you protect your rights or anticipate how an estate may be divided.

Polales Horton & Leonardi LLP is pleased to announce that Michael J. Testa has joined the firm as a Partner in its Chicago office. Mr. Testa brings more than thirteen years of experience representing clients in complex commercial litigation across a wide range of industries including business and real estate disputes, and toxic tort, products liability, premises liability, professional liability and personal injury defense.

In a recent federal court case from the Seventh Circuit, Mesco Manufacturing, LLC v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, the Court rejected a particularly egregious attempt at such subterfuge. 7th Cir. Court of Appeals, No. 24-1307 (July 25, 2025). Following a hailstorm in summer 2018, Mesco Manufacturing submitted a claim to its insurer, Motorists Mutual, for roof damage.

Companies that formerly mined limestone or sold products containing it should consider examining their historical insurance coverage now to determine if they have asbestos coverage. Asbestos-related injury claims allege exposure not only to raw asbestos but to asbestos allegedly included in other minerals or in end products, such as joint compound. Modern asbestos claims often pertain to injuries resulting from exposure that occurred as far back as the 1950s or 1960s. Generally, insurance policies issued prior to the mid-1980s cover asbestos bodily injury claims, and those historical insurers will respond to a claim filed today that implicates their old policies.

Maybe. In long-tail claims like asbestos, which implicate multiple policy periods, insurers and policyholders often contend fiercely over the allocation of defense and indemnity among triggered policies. Insurers vie for pro rata allocation, which typically spreads the costs evenly across triggered policies, and possibly across periods where there was no insurance. Under this methodology, each insurer only pays a sliver of the costs, and, in some jurisdictions, the policyholder is on the hook for uninsured periods. Policyholders, in contrast, pursue an “all sums” allocation, which is based on standard policy language requiring each insurer to pay “all sums the policyholder becomes legally obligated to pay. Under this approach, policyholders can pick any triggered policy to cover the entire claim, and thus typically avoid paying anything. Needless to say, the allocation methodology adopted in a particular jurisdiction has monumental financial implications for both insurers and policyholders. The law on allocation differs state to state: some adopt a form of pro-rata allocation, others implement all sums, and still others remain undecided.