By David A. Gauntlett*
Introduction
In insurance coverage litigation, one of the most consequential questions a court may face is deceptively simple: how many claims are at issue? The answer can dramatically alter the financial outcome of a dispute between an insurer and a policyholder. When courts determine that multiple claims or occurrences exist, the result may be the application of multiple policy limits, potentially increasing the amount of coverage available to the insured. Conversely, multiple claims may also trigger multiple deductibles or retentions, reducing the net recovery. If a court instead concludes that a dispute involves a single claim, all alleged wrongdoing may be compressed into one policy limit and require only one deductible, which may significantly constrain the insured’s recovery while also limiting the insurer’s exposure.
Given these high stakes, it is unsurprising that disputes over the number of claims frequently arise in complex litigation, particularly in cases involving corporate governance, securities violations, or long-running regulatory investigations. In these situations, multiple lawsuits, investigations, or enforcement actions may arise from the same underlying conduct but unfold across different time periods and policy years. Determining whether those actions constitute separate claims or a single claim can therefore be difficult.
Challenges in Determining Relatedness
Despite the widespread use of related claims provisions, courts have struggled to develop consistent standards for determining when claims are sufficiently connected to be treated as one. Different jurisdictions have adopted different approaches, and in many cases these approaches have developed independently of the specific language contained in the insurance policy at issue.
Some courts have adopted broad “factual nexus” tests, examining whether claims share a sufficient factual connection to be considered related. Under this approach, claims may be deemed related if they arise from a common set of underlying facts or events, even if they involve different legal theories or parties. Other courts have applied more restrictive standards, such as requiring claims to be “fundamentally identical” before they are treated as a single claim.
More recently, courts have experimented with other formulations, such as asking whether claims share a “meaningful linkage” or logical connection. Although these tests attempt to provide guidance, they often introduce additional complexity because their application may depend heavily on the specific facts of a case.
The result is a patchwork of standards that can produce inconsistent outcomes. Two courts examining similar policy language and similar allegations may reach different conclusions simply because they apply different judicial tests. This lack of uniformity can make it difficult for insurers and policyholders to predict how courts will interpret related claims provisions.
Complicating matters further, the incentives of the parties may shift depending on the context of a particular dispute. An insured may argue that claims are unrelated in order to access multiple policy limits across several policy periods. In a different situation, the same insured may argue that claims are related to avoid paying multiple deductibles. Insurers may likewise advance inconsistent positions depending on whether they seek to limit liability or enforce multiple retentions.
These shifting incentives can lead to outcome-driven arguments that focus less on the policy language and more on achieving a favorable financial result in the specific case at hand. Scholars have observed that the variety of judicial approaches in this area makes it difficult to formulate a coherent theory of relatedness. When courts rely heavily on judge-made tests rather than the language of the policy itself, coverage litigation can become unpredictable and heavily dependent on jurisdictional differences.
New York Court Applied “Unfortunate Event” Test in Recent NFL Case
In Discover Prop. & Cas. Co. v. NFL, 2026 NY Slip Op 05595 (App. Div.), claims arose from a series of lawsuits filed against the National Football League (NFL) by former professional football players and their families. They alleged that the league failed to protect players from the long-term dangers of concussions and actively concealed the risks associated with repeated head injuries. For determining whether the claims were “related,” the court relied on the “unfortunate event” test articulated by the New York Court of Appeals:
[S]everal factors emerge as relevant to distinguishing injuries or losses that arise from a single occurrence as opposed to those that constitute multiple occurrences: whether there is a close temporal and spatial relationship between the incidents giving rise to injury or loss, and whether the incidents can be viewed as part of the same causal continuum, without intervening agents or factors. Common causation is pertinent once the incident--the fulcrum of our analysis--is identified, but the cause should not be conflated with the incident.[1]
The NFL court held that each former player’s alleged concussion-related injury constituted at least one separate occurrence under the applicable primary policy, preventing the NFL from triggering coverage under AGLIC's 2001–2002 excess policy. The court reasoned that although the injuries shared common characteristics, they involved more than 20,000 former players, approximately 10,000 games, multiple decades, and roughly 90 stadiums. These circumstances lacked the temporal and spatial unity necessary to treat the injuries as a single occurrence.[2] Accordingly, the court determined that the lower court should have granted the NFL's request for a declaration that each player's claim constituted a separate occurrence and granted AGLIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the NFL's excess-coverage claims.
However, the court rejected several of TIG's defenses to primary coverage. TIG failed to establish that the NFL expected or intended the injuries or that the injuries did not occur during the relevant policy periods. The court also rejected TIG's argument that the NFL suffered no covered loss because its 32 member clubs had fully compensated it, explaining that payments by the clubs constituted payments by the insured entity itself. Additionally, TIG could not defeat coverage by challenging the reasonableness of the settlement, because the federal district court and the Third Circuit had already evaluated the underlying litigation's complexity and determined that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Finally, the court held that NFL football did not qualify as a “product” under TIG's PCOH provisions. It found that the lower court had improperly expanded the policy's definition of “product” by relying on common usage rather than the policy's specific language. Because PCOH coverage generally applies to bodily injury caused by a product after it leaves the insured's physical possession, treating the intangible activity of playing football as a product would contradict the provision's plain meaning and purpose.
Importance of Claim Determination in Coverage Analysis
The determination of how many claims exist within a given dispute is central to the operation of many insurance policies, especially Directors & Officers (“D&O”) liability policies.[3] These policies are designed to protect corporate executives and organizations from financial losses associated with lawsuits alleging mismanagement, breaches of fiduciary duty, or securities law violations. Because these types of claims often arise from complex business decisions and may lead to multiple related lawsuits, D&O policies typically contain specific provisions governing how claims are counted.
Most D&O policies establish both a per-claim limit of liability and an aggregate limit for all claims made during the policy period. The per-claim limit caps the amount the insurer will pay for any single claim, while the aggregate limit caps the total amount payable for all claims combined during the policy term. Determining whether a dispute involves one claim or several can therefore have enormous financial implications.
In addition to these limits, policies often require policyholders to satisfy a retention or deductible for each claim before the insurer’s obligations begin. When multiple claims are deemed to exist, the insured may be responsible for paying multiple deductibles, which can significantly reduce the value of the coverage. On the other hand, if a court treats multiple legal actions as a single claim, the insured may only need to satisfy one retention.
Conclusion
Given the importance of the determination for how many “claims” arise under a particular policy and the variety of ways in which various courts approach that determination, choice of forum (and therefore applicable choice of law rules) can be critically important. This is just one of many issues that highlights the need for expert coverage counsel to ensure you obtain all benefits owed under a policy.
*David A. Gauntlett is a principal of Gauntlett Law and represents policyholders in insurance coverage disputes regarding intellectual property, antitrust, and business tort claims, as well as in the underlying actions. Mr. Gauntlett can be reached at (949) 514-5662 or dag@gauntlettlaw.com. For more information, visit Gauntlett Law at www.gauntlettlaw.com.
[1] Appalachian Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 8 N.Y.3d 162, 171–72 (2007).
[2] NFL, 2026 NY Slip Op 05595 at ¶ 11 (“[G]iven that each head impact was sustained by different players, at different times, in different places, throughout the entirety of each player's career, and over several decades, the incidents cannot be said to have been precipitated by a single causal continuum.”)
[3] See David A. Gauntlett, Utah State Court Applying California Law Narrowly Interprets “Related” Claims, https://www.gauntlettlaw.com/blogs/utah-state-court-applying-california-law-narrowly-interprets-related-claims (July 23, 2026) (addressing the recent decision in Hitchman Fiduciaries, LLC v. Dominion Ins. Servs., No. 250404260, 2026 Utah Dist. LEXIS 2 (2026) finding that claims were not “related” and therefore triggered coverage under multiple policies).